...the relevant question was whether he was ever involuntarily committed.

One must be either incompetent or committed to be barred from gun ownership.

"incompetent"
Is there a time line for that?
Is there a way to be ruled "competent" after successful treatment or passage of time demonstrates compentacy?

"committed"
Very few people are committed for more than 72 hours observation nowdays.
they are sent to a local MH clinic for follow up and treatment after 72 hours, in most cases.
So, anyway to reflect a change in their MH status over time?

BTW...a LOT of people high on drugs or alcohol will end up in 72 hour hold, be prefectly sane when the drugs leave their system, but have a record of being committed.

So pink slips are insufficient. Incompetency decrees are the most common.

apparently not.

but the neighbors & the local police probably all knew. certainly his mom did.

perhaps there should be people willing to vouch for your character as part of the background check, or a pre-pickup interview at your local precinct, where they're likely to know that you're schizophrenic and have no business near a firearm.

Sure, middlemen could use them to make money, but that is all. Need someone to vouch for you? $20. Interview? No problem. The NRA has a new booklet describing exactly what will be asked and what you should answer.

However, I object to the idea that someone who is schizophrenic has any less right to have a firearm or other manufactured killing device than anyone else.

This deflection which has been performed by the gun lobby is impressive, but it means unnecessary discrimination against the mentally ill, which is pretty fucking uncool.

Would you elaborate a bit please?

That's effectively what this is suggesting; we all have constitutional rights, except for those who don't?

It's not as if someone wants to commit crimes by virtue of being schizophrenic. Schizophrenia is an illness and should be treated as such. It should not be a reason to deny rights to someone. Would you also suggest that we deny schizophrenics the right to vote?

For the record, I don't think anyone should own a gun, but right now it's a constitutional right, and thus interfering with it brings up serious questions about how we treat people in relation to their other rights.

You're some kind of mystic psychic, but like Sylvia Brown, you're not very good at it.

I asked because I worked for DHS in state hospitals. The term schizophrenic was used a lot. I can remember 3 or 4 clients who definitely should not EVER be allowed to own a gun, but come to think of it, they were already not allowed to own guns because of the violent felonies on their records.

Whatver - I don't think it's discrimination to withhold a gun license if a person can be shown to be dangerously mentally ill. If that makes me some kind of Nazi constitution-destroyer in your eyes, I'll just have to live with that.

Most people who commit violent crimes are not mentally ill or at least not diagnosed as such. This focus on mental illness is deflection, pure and simple. Don't fall into the trip of ignoring the real problem which is definitely not mental illness.

A lot of schizophrenics are well medicated and the vast majority aren't even dangerous when they aren't.

Allentown man shot, killed after opening fire on NYC subway
http://www.wfmz.com/news/news-regional-lehighvalley/Allentown-man-shot-killed-after-opening-fire-on-NYC-subway/-/132502/18022090/-/rn4rwmz/-/index.html

Mental illness changed course of subway shooter's life
Subway shooter was vibrant teen before descent into schizophrenia and violence
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/topic/mc-allentown-new-york-subway-shooting-20130112,0,6484787.story?page=4&track=rss-topicgallery

Valley pair face gun charges linked to N.Y. subway shooting
Mentally ill Allentown man shot police officers with weapon deceptively purchased in Whitehall, feds say.

http://articles.mcall.com/2013-01-15/news/mc-allentown-new-york-subway-shooting-arrests-20130114_1_cousin-angelo-laro-maldonado-officer-michael-levay-takeover-ministries

http://psychcentral.com/news/2009/05/21/schizophrenia-does-not-influence-risk-of-violent-crime/6016.html

Or the fact you could find counter examples of non schizophrenics committing similar crimes.

You should really do some research into what mental illness is actually like. I promise you it is nothing like those psycho killer movies, just real people in real pain that far more often than not wouldn't dream of hurting anyone.

Be careful when reading the Wikipedia report on schizophrenia, it is obviously written by someone who is NOT familiar with the field, but reporting what he had read for example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia

Most??? Most people with Schizophrenia have it in a MINOR form, and thus completely functional in society, they just do NOT hear voices, it is only in the severe versions of Schizophrenia due you get to that point (Hearing voices is NOT Schizophrenia, Schizophrenics CAN hear voices, but that is an additional mental problem NOT Schizophrenia.

The big problem is disorganized thinking, for example, 1+1=B for B is the second letter in the alphabet. They thinking has a logic, but it is NOT want most people would call Logical.

Please note, Some people confuse with this with split personality, but that is a completely different (and unrelated) mental disorder

Most of the thinking of Schizophrenics cause no problems, they cross at walk signs, stop on Red lights etc. On the other hand some of they actions can be bazaar for example, jumping in front of a speeding car, so she can see her daughter who is in the car.

The Wikipedia articles makes some other "mistakes" for example, mention first onset is young adulthood, but then does NOT point out it hits most males in the mid to later teens, most females onset is in the mid to late 20s (Thus you get a lot of women with advance degrees with Schizophrenia, but few men, for the Schizophrenia hits men BEFORE they go to Collage, hits most women AFTER they go to Collage).

All told, they is NOTHING that shows a person with Schizophrenia will do greater acts of violence then a person without Schizophrenia. The problem is what other mental disorders did this person have, those other disorders, including Paranoia are greater indicator of violence then Schizophrenia,

One last comment, Schizophrenia is also tied in with genius, the exact relationship is unknown but it exists.

Also, some schizophrenics are simply abnormally silent and lacking in affect.

Schizophrenia should be considered an umbrella term for a lot of different things, just knowing someone had schizophrenia doesn't tell you a whole lot about their mental illness either.

Schizophrenia used to always be the 'severe' form with some degree of psychosis. Milder forms were called "Schizoid Personality" and ?Schizo-affective?. More recently they combined them all into a "Schizophrenia-spectrum" with a scale of severity. So depending who you talk to, they could mean only the psychotic variety or all including the milder varieties. They can't do much pharmacologically for the milder forms - so if they are medicated its probably anti-psychotics and hence the more severe end of the spectrum.

They all come with social skill and anxiety problems - so usually loners. Social skills includes things like meeting friends, dating, nonverbal communication, making phone calls, lying, cheating, murdering - all social skills. We have trouble with any of that. I doubt any schizo would be prone to murder except some untreated psychotics. Suicide is a different matter - much more prone to that.

Lots of artists, problem solvers - "disorganized thinking, for example, 1+1=B" is what some call "lateral thinking" and creativity. But it takes a good boss, agent or friend to deal with them.

Its about 3% of the population - so you've surely met some without knowing it.

Many years ago my office took out a local Psychologist to lunch for a discussion on what he can and can not say we we had him on the stand during Custody and Visitation cases or Children and Youth cases. He asked if one of the lawyers in my office fill out the form for the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), so he could use it to discuss what the MMPI and other Psychological testing mean.

I ended up taking his last MMPI test (MMPI was replaced by the MMPI-II a few years earlier so this was the last one he had). He told us, it would take him about four hours to evaluate the results of the test but he was ready when we took him out to lunch. One of the result was I slightly "lied" on the test (on the test "lied" is NOT that I made a deliberate effort to make a false statement, but that my statements were not to be viewed as 100% factual, i.e. my own view of myself is NOT accurate and I tend to view myself in a better light then others did of me, notice the term "Slightly" is in front of the term "lied" so it was a minor concern for the test).

One of the findings of the MMPI was I did have a slight case of Schizophrenia and I remember another attorney reading what that meant, and her joking it fit my to a tee. My Social skills were weak, including things like meeting friends, dating, nonverbal communication, making phone calls, and (my favorite) "deviate sexual activity" (Translation I sleep alone). Your comments as to "lying, cheating, murdering" did not come up in any of the text he let us read. The reason is those tend NOT to be Schizophrenia, for to do any of them you must want to interact, and people with Schizophrenia have a strong tendency NOT to interact. Subsequent research supports that position.

Just a coment on Schizophrenia and that I have an idea of its problems. My family all tend to be loners, but highly educated.

Please see PM, to follow.

Immediately.

If I go to the doctor and have a seizure problem or am diagnosed with Dementia, they are required to notify the DMV, who will re-examine my ability to drive legally on public roads.

I live in Pennsylvania, every four years we renew our driver's license. Penndot sends us a form to renew, we mail it back with a Check, Penndot then mails us a "Camera Card" that we can use as a temporary license till we get around to getting a new picture taken at the nearest Penndot Photo center. No exam, you just go in, sign in, take seat till you are called, then get your picture taken and wait another minutes or so and then the clerk gives you your new photo Driver's License.

I know, you may ask, no driving test? No, not even a quick test on the rules of the road, not even a vision test? No, Pennsylvania did NOT even wanted to have photo licenses, Pennsylvania and Vermont were the last two states to have PAPER licenses and had them till the mid 1980s when the Federal Government Threaten to withhold Federal Highway funds unless both of them adopted some sort of Photo License. Pennsylvania fought the Federal Government and finally agreed to the bare minimum it had to do to comply with the Federal demand. That is the story till this day, I have NOT had a Pennsylvania driving test since I was 16 and I am now 54 years old.

Now, Pennsylvania will pull your license if a Doctor reports you are unsafe to drive, but the Doctor can only do that if you go and see one. Doctors can not report on someone who never comes into their office. Thus many people avoid having their license pulled by NOT going to see a Doctor (or tell the doctor they do NOT have a driving license).

At the same time do we want to encourage people to seek help? One way NOT to do that is to punish them if they seek help, i.e. pulling their license or taking their guns. Thus the dilemma, is it better to protect society to removing all KNOWN people with severe psychological problems, or to encourage people who are NOT known to have such problems to seek help? People will want to say both, but in most cases it is one or the other and I believe the second will do society more good then the first.

However, what if you applied that reasoning to another example of when a Dr. is compelled to notify government about a patient?

If you have a child that turns up with bruises or cuts that are totally accidental or that could otherwise be possibly explained, CPS is going to be notified immediately. And if your child isn't old enough to give their side of the story, CPS can take them and charge you. I know this, because it happened to somebody my family is close with, and they are about to get a large settlement for it.

Do you believe that Drs. shouldn't notify CPS over possible abuse, since that probably deters child abusers from taking their children to for appointments? Should teachers stop reporting suspected abuse, because parents might hold the kids from school?

More study needs to be done on the red-flagging for guns by doctors. Not giving the Dr. the ability to completely remove your 2nd amendment rights, just allowing them to cause some extra diligence before allowing them to purchase a weapon.

Regardless of whether one has a valid driver's license or is declared mentally incompetent, one can buy and sell as many cars as one can afford.

But short of incompetency you are correct, if someone is incompetent then he or she no longer has the ability judge such a purchase rationally and thus the buying and selling is not permitted by law.

Please note, incompetency is a very low threshold, you have to be a harm to yourself or others, you must no longer know what you own or who are your heirs (The classic example is a Person can think he is Napoleon, but if he knows who his actual heirs are and what his property is, he is still competent under the law).

be made just based upon physical appearance?

ailments over the years and had meds adjusted accordingly each time. They're (the diagnosis) transient, that is to say, a moving target to say the least.

Does anyone believe those things are going to work? If the seller wants to sell, it'll happen.

they are going to set up a process whereby if mental healthcare professionals think someone is potentially violent they can report them. Those individuals would be put in a database and prevented from owning and buying guns.

the new law also absolves the reporter from civil and criminal penalties whether they report or not (in good faith, of course), so a doctor worried about somebody won't be found liable if the patient sues them for calling the cops. Takes the fear out of it for the doctor, so they are more likely to report.

... if mental healthcare professionals can't be trusted, if there's no dr/patient confidentiality, they'll lose patients.

Doctors have duty to report dementia and some siezure disorders to the Department of Motor Vehicles, who may or may not suspend/revoke your license after further investigation.

A Dr. should not have the final say on the first report, but it should be a "red-flag" that causes further investigation into the individual before the sale is completed.

Devil's advocate here..

"potentially violent"..based on what criteria?

Not all people with the same diagnosis are violent ( see above post 19 by happyslug)

As a Mental Health professional, I certainly can not predict violence..I can predict possibility of violence,
or say that there is potential for violence, but to what degree is impossible to know.
Most of the truly psychotic clients I knew were never violent until the episode hit.

But, let's assume we get you into a database.
How do you get out of the database down the road when your mental status changes?
Shades of the no fly list.

ACLU will jump on any such database, betcha.

Because some will.

If it stops 1 James Holmes it will be worth it.

I'm okay with that.

If you looked the least bit off-kilter when you came into my store, I wouldn't sell you a gun. If you persisted, I might even call the cops on you.

Some of the responsibility has to fall on the actual point-of-sale. There's a reason you can't just scan a 12-gauge at the automated checkout register at Wal-Mart and walk out the door with your new Remington without anybody at least giving you the hairy eyeball.

He's playing offense. Just as Orin Hatch is playing offense with remarks like: "That's the way reductions in liberty occur," Hatch told reporters outside the Senate chamber. "When you start saying people all have to sign up for something, and they have a database where they know exactly who's who, and where government can persecute people because of the database, that alarms a lot of people in our country, and it flies in the face of liberty."

That's not only staying on the offense, its offensive to those of us whose lives are endangered by their refusal to consider the safety of Americans living in a violent culture.

Gun Control advocates have the ball, but they've got cojones.

that is all they care about. 2nd Amendment is just a crutch.

the neighbors of dangerously violent wackos are often enough quoted on TV later, saying "he seemed like such a nice person!"