Unless you’ve been living under a rock over the last few years, you’ve probably seen or read about the on-going debate in gun control that focuses on the issue of mental health and gun ownership. The gist of the issue involves a movement to tie mental health records into the background process in order to keep weapons out of the hands of “mentally ill” people.
This approach has met significant resistance from the patient advocacy groups as many feel it violates a person’s right to privacy regarding any known medical issues. Personally, I support the approach as many of the recent mass shooting tragedies potentially could have been averted if such a system was in place.
However, this plan does enter into a slippery slope in terms of privacy and a reasonable definition of mental health issues. For example, how would such a program treat issues like depression, PTSD, or attempted suicide?
As you think about that question, have a look at the problem this PA State Trooper is facing:
PA Cop Barred from Carrying Off-Duty Due to Health Record
State Trooper Michael L. Keyes cannot carry off-duty because he has a history of depression and attempted suicide
By Matt Miller
Penn Live
Pennsylvania State Trooper Michael L. Keyes is in an odd situation. When on duty, he can carry a gun. Yet while off duty, he is barred by law from possessing any firearms, because seven years ago he suffered from deep depression, repeatedly tried to kill himself by taking drugs and was involuntarily committed for mental health treatment.
Keyes’ latest attempt to be allowed to have a gun all the time was rejected this week by the state Superior Court.
That court upheld an earlier ruling by Perry County Senior Judge Keith B. Quigley that Keyes’ involuntary mental health commitment constitutes an unsurmountable legal barrier to his ability to possess a gun while off duty.
Read the original store here at Policeone.com
So here’s a case of a sworn LEO who can only carry a weapon when he is on duty, yet he can’t be “trusted” enough to carry off duty due to a prior issue with depression. Here’s the type of legal quandary I’m talking about.
And what about the many returning veterans who come home from serving our country, are diagnosed with PTSD, and potentially may not be able to carry a concealed weapon? Hmmm…we seemed to trust them enough to defend our country with a weapon.
Again, I support the approach as I genuinely believe that integrating mental health records into the background process “should” help weed out potentially dangerous people who SHOULD NOT own firearms. My concern centers around the definitions and rules that will be applied on the mental heath side.
Just some food for thought…