Florida rep files bill to bar mentally ill from buying guns | | The Gun Writer http://thegunwriter.blogs.heraldtribune.com/10961/florida-rep-files-bill-to-bar-mentally-ill-from-buying-guns/?wpmp_switcher=desktop&tc=ar ......” Tallahassee – Since the fourth week in January, 2013,
Florida State Rep. Barbara Watson has been
consulting with subject matter experts from the
Florida Supreme Court Mental Health Task Force, the
National Rifle Association, and the Florida Department
of Law Enforcement to further enhance Florida’s
ability to keep persons with mental illnesses who are
known to be a danger to themselves or others from
purchasing firearms in Florida. “I am pleased to have
the support of experts with whom we have worked to
develop a bill that will give us further protection
against people with mental illnesses buying firearms,”
said Representative Watson.
The specific problem, identified by Rep. Watson, deals
with situations where people with mental illnesses
who are a danger to self or others agree to a
voluntary commitment for treatment to avoid an
involuntary commitment proceeding, then quickly
check themselves out of the mental health facility
and have no record in the National Instant Check
System (NICS) database to prohibit them from
purchasing a firearm.
Under HB 1355, a person could be prohibited from
purchasing a firearm if the examining physician finds
the person imminently dangerous to himself or others
and files a special certificate that if the person doesn’t
agree to voluntary commitment for treatment, an
involuntary commitment petition will be filed.
At the time the person is diagnosed as dangerous, the
person would receive written notice of the
certification and agrees to accept voluntary
commitment with a full understanding that he or she
will be prohibited from purchasing a firearm or
applying for a concealed weapons or firearms license
or retaining one.
The bill would require speedy transmission of this
information to the county court; if a judge approves
the record for submission to the instant check system,
it is sent along quickly to the FDLE for entry into NICS.
Relief from the disability would be available through
the existing statutory process.
If the person disagrees or feels strongly about not
giving up his gun rights, the person can refuse to sign
and the petition for involuntary commitment can
move ahead.Essentially, the bill language closes the gap in the
Baker Act process and allows the state to put a
prohibition on dangerous people who should be
prohibited from having a firearm.”.... Except for the fact that there is no ”loophole” (see below) & except for the fact that we should not treat those who have depression & who attempt suicide in the same way that we treat homicidal maniacs this would be a brilliant idea.
First I'm relieved to learn that a battered wife who attempts suicide ( and who is therefore a "danger to herself" ) will be "protected" from buying the firearm that she needs
to defend herself from her 300 pound batterer when her restraining order fails to magically restrain the brute. It is morally obscene to equate the suicidal with the homicidal. Nor would prohibiting someone who has attempted suicide prevent them from attempting suicide again by any one of a number of countless other ways . It would be trivially easy for a suicidal battered spouse to be stripped of her Second Amendment rights by a Judge who thinks that ”guns are never the answer” ,and how easy would it be & how long would it take for a abused spouse to recover her rights? Before or after her abuser hunts her down?
And how many psychiatrists would expose themselves to potential liability by writing a letter urging the Judge to restore someone's Second Amendment rights ( assuming that the psychiatrist even believed in the Second Amendment)
This is not a ”hypothetical” case ,I personally know of at least one battered spouse who would fall into this category. Battered women often suffer from depression & often blame themselves for the abuse.
And what is the basis for this claim that significant numbers of dangerous people are being Baker Acted & then cleverly exploiting this imaginary loophole to release themselves early? It is true that under the existing law (in Florida) if a person is Baker acted they can choose to be admitted on a voluntary basis & then decide to check out against Doctor's orders BUT ONLY IF THE DOCTOR DOES NOT SEEK TO SWITCH THE PERSON BACK TO INVOLUNTARY STATUS. This is plain from the statute. (fn1) There is no ”loophole” unless the Doctor fails to do his job (in which case the law is moot) The BEST CASE SCENARIO if this bill passes would be a massive increase in Court cases since someone who attempted suicide would have no choice but to go to court if they wished to retain their Second Amendment rights; this would enormously complicate the treatment of depression since patients & doctors would be forced into a adversarial relationship with temporary in-patient treatmen t rendered off-limits to those who wished to preserve their Second Amendment rights. And this does not even begin to address the problem of politically motivated individuals exploiting the system to ”protect” the mentally ill from gun ownership.
Footnotes:
fn1. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0394/Sections/0394.4625.html See 5. 394.4625 Voluntary admissions (2) DISCHARGE OF VOLUNTARY PATIENTS.—
(a) A facility shall discharge a voluntary patient:
1. Who has sufficiently improved so that retention
in the facility is no longer desirable. A patient may
also be discharged to the care of a community facility.
2. Who revokes consent to admission or requests
discharge. A voluntary patient or a relative, friend, or
attorney of the patient may request discharge either
orally or in writing at any time following admission to
the facility. The patient must be discharged within 24
hours of the request, unless the request is rescinded
or the patient is transferred to involuntary status
pursuant to this section. The 24-hour time period may
be extended by a treatment facility when necessary
for adequate discharge planning, but shall not exceed
3 days exclusive of weekends and holidays. If the
patient, or another on the patient’s behalf, makes an
oral request for discharge to a staff member, such
request shall be immediately entered in the patient’s
clinical record. If the request for discharge is made by
a person other than the patient, the discharge may
be conditioned upon the express and informed
consent of the patient.
(b) A voluntary patient who has been admitted to
a facility and who refuses to consent to or revokes
consent to treatment shall be discharged within 24
hours after such refusal or revocation, unless
transferred to involuntary status pursuant to this
section or unless the refusal or revocation is freely
and voluntarily rescinded by the patient.
(3) NOTICE OF RIGHT TO DISCHARGE.—At the time
of admission and at least every 6 months thereafter,
a voluntary patient shall be notified in writing of his
or her right to apply for a discharge.
(4) TRANSFER TO VOLUNTARY STATUS.—An
involuntary patient who applies to be transferred to
voluntary status shall be transferred to voluntary
status immediately, unless the patient has been
charged with a crime, or has been involuntarily
placed for treatment by a court pursuant to s. 394.467
and continues to meet the criteria for involuntary
placement. When transfer to voluntary status occurs,
notice shall be given as provided in s. 394.4599.
(5) TRANSFER TO INVOLUNTARY STATUS.—When a
voluntary patient, or an authorized person on the
patient’s behalf, makes a request for discharge, the
request for discharge, unless freely and voluntarily
rescinded, must be communicated to a physician,
clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist as quickly as
possible, but not later than 12 hours after the
request is made. If the patient meets the criteria for
involuntary placement, the administrator of the
facility must file with the court a petition for
involuntary placement, within 2 court working days
after the request for discharge is made. If the petition
is not filed within 2 court working days, the patient
shall be discharged. Pending the filing of the petition,
the patient may be held and emergency treatment
rendered in the least restrictive manner, upon the
written order of a physician, if it is determined that
such treatment is necessary for the safety of the
patient or others.
History. —s. 8, ch. 71-131; s. 7, ch. 73-133; s. 109,
ch. 73-333; s. 8, ch. 79-298; s. 11, ch. 82-212; s. 709,
ch. 95-148; s. 17, ch. 96-169; s. 22, ch. 99-394.
Note. — Former s. 394.465.
Florida State Rep. Barbara Watson has been
consulting with subject matter experts from the
Florida Supreme Court Mental Health Task Force, the
National Rifle Association, and the Florida Department
of Law Enforcement to further enhance Florida’s
ability to keep persons with mental illnesses who are
known to be a danger to themselves or others from
purchasing firearms in Florida. “I am pleased to have
the support of experts with whom we have worked to
develop a bill that will give us further protection
against people with mental illnesses buying firearms,”
said Representative Watson.
The specific problem, identified by Rep. Watson, deals
with situations where people with mental illnesses
who are a danger to self or others agree to a
voluntary commitment for treatment to avoid an
involuntary commitment proceeding, then quickly
check themselves out of the mental health facility
and have no record in the National Instant Check
System (NICS) database to prohibit them from
purchasing a firearm.
Under HB 1355, a person could be prohibited from
purchasing a firearm if the examining physician finds
the person imminently dangerous to himself or others
and files a special certificate that if the person doesn’t
agree to voluntary commitment for treatment, an
involuntary commitment petition will be filed.
At the time the person is diagnosed as dangerous, the
person would receive written notice of the
certification and agrees to accept voluntary
commitment with a full understanding that he or she
will be prohibited from purchasing a firearm or
applying for a concealed weapons or firearms license
or retaining one.
The bill would require speedy transmission of this
information to the county court; if a judge approves
the record for submission to the instant check system,
it is sent along quickly to the FDLE for entry into NICS.
Relief from the disability would be available through
the existing statutory process.
If the person disagrees or feels strongly about not
giving up his gun rights, the person can refuse to sign
and the petition for involuntary commitment can
move ahead.Essentially, the bill language closes the gap in the
Baker Act process and allows the state to put a
prohibition on dangerous people who should be
prohibited from having a firearm.”.... Except for the fact that there is no ”loophole” (see below) & except for the fact that we should not treat those who have depression & who attempt suicide in the same way that we treat homicidal maniacs this would be a brilliant idea.
First I'm relieved to learn that a battered wife who attempts suicide ( and who is therefore a "danger to herself" ) will be "protected" from buying the firearm that she needs
to defend herself from her 300 pound batterer when her restraining order fails to magically restrain the brute. It is morally obscene to equate the suicidal with the homicidal. Nor would prohibiting someone who has attempted suicide prevent them from attempting suicide again by any one of a number of countless other ways . It would be trivially easy for a suicidal battered spouse to be stripped of her Second Amendment rights by a Judge who thinks that ”guns are never the answer” ,and how easy would it be & how long would it take for a abused spouse to recover her rights? Before or after her abuser hunts her down?
And how many psychiatrists would expose themselves to potential liability by writing a letter urging the Judge to restore someone's Second Amendment rights ( assuming that the psychiatrist even believed in the Second Amendment)
This is not a ”hypothetical” case ,I personally know of at least one battered spouse who would fall into this category. Battered women often suffer from depression & often blame themselves for the abuse.
And what is the basis for this claim that significant numbers of dangerous people are being Baker Acted & then cleverly exploiting this imaginary loophole to release themselves early? It is true that under the existing law (in Florida) if a person is Baker acted they can choose to be admitted on a voluntary basis & then decide to check out against Doctor's orders BUT ONLY IF THE DOCTOR DOES NOT SEEK TO SWITCH THE PERSON BACK TO INVOLUNTARY STATUS. This is plain from the statute. (fn1) There is no ”loophole” unless the Doctor fails to do his job (in which case the law is moot) The BEST CASE SCENARIO if this bill passes would be a massive increase in Court cases since someone who attempted suicide would have no choice but to go to court if they wished to retain their Second Amendment rights; this would enormously complicate the treatment of depression since patients & doctors would be forced into a adversarial relationship with temporary in-patient treatmen t rendered off-limits to those who wished to preserve their Second Amendment rights. And this does not even begin to address the problem of politically motivated individuals exploiting the system to ”protect” the mentally ill from gun ownership.
Footnotes:
fn1. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0394/Sections/0394.4625.html See 5. 394.4625 Voluntary admissions (2) DISCHARGE OF VOLUNTARY PATIENTS.—
(a) A facility shall discharge a voluntary patient:
1. Who has sufficiently improved so that retention
in the facility is no longer desirable. A patient may
also be discharged to the care of a community facility.
2. Who revokes consent to admission or requests
discharge. A voluntary patient or a relative, friend, or
attorney of the patient may request discharge either
orally or in writing at any time following admission to
the facility. The patient must be discharged within 24
hours of the request, unless the request is rescinded
or the patient is transferred to involuntary status
pursuant to this section. The 24-hour time period may
be extended by a treatment facility when necessary
for adequate discharge planning, but shall not exceed
3 days exclusive of weekends and holidays. If the
patient, or another on the patient’s behalf, makes an
oral request for discharge to a staff member, such
request shall be immediately entered in the patient’s
clinical record. If the request for discharge is made by
a person other than the patient, the discharge may
be conditioned upon the express and informed
consent of the patient.
(b) A voluntary patient who has been admitted to
a facility and who refuses to consent to or revokes
consent to treatment shall be discharged within 24
hours after such refusal or revocation, unless
transferred to involuntary status pursuant to this
section or unless the refusal or revocation is freely
and voluntarily rescinded by the patient.
(3) NOTICE OF RIGHT TO DISCHARGE.—At the time
of admission and at least every 6 months thereafter,
a voluntary patient shall be notified in writing of his
or her right to apply for a discharge.
(4) TRANSFER TO VOLUNTARY STATUS.—An
involuntary patient who applies to be transferred to
voluntary status shall be transferred to voluntary
status immediately, unless the patient has been
charged with a crime, or has been involuntarily
placed for treatment by a court pursuant to s. 394.467
and continues to meet the criteria for involuntary
placement. When transfer to voluntary status occurs,
notice shall be given as provided in s. 394.4599.
(5) TRANSFER TO INVOLUNTARY STATUS.—When a
voluntary patient, or an authorized person on the
patient’s behalf, makes a request for discharge, the
request for discharge, unless freely and voluntarily
rescinded, must be communicated to a physician,
clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist as quickly as
possible, but not later than 12 hours after the
request is made. If the patient meets the criteria for
involuntary placement, the administrator of the
facility must file with the court a petition for
involuntary placement, within 2 court working days
after the request for discharge is made. If the petition
is not filed within 2 court working days, the patient
shall be discharged. Pending the filing of the petition,
the patient may be held and emergency treatment
rendered in the least restrictive manner, upon the
written order of a physician, if it is determined that
such treatment is necessary for the safety of the
patient or others.
History. —s. 8, ch. 71-131; s. 7, ch. 73-133; s. 109,
ch. 73-333; s. 8, ch. 79-298; s. 11, ch. 82-212; s. 709,
ch. 95-148; s. 17, ch. 96-169; s. 22, ch. 99-394.
Note. — Former s. 394.465.
No comments:
Post a Comment