"Mental Illness" prohibitions on CCW permits


BradAnderson

New member
Michigan and some other state laws prohibit issuing CCW permits to persons "diagnosed with mental illness."

The CCW permit-application also asks "have you ever been diagnosed with a mental illness," with a check-box for "yes" or "no." The application states that by signing it, you aagree and consent for them to check all records, public, private, privileged or otherwise; and if they find anything incorrect, then you're guilty of perjury and other felonies subject to fine and imprisonment.

Note that the applicant also has no way of finding out if there's some "record" which could be construed in this manner; they are basically held responsible for knowing.

The legislation-reform process on "shall-issue" CCW laws, likewise defends CCW's on the grounds that it will "respect long-standing prohibitions regarding persons with mental illnesses."

As to the definition of "mental illness," the law defines as "any nervous or mental condition interfering with everyday life." This is incredibly vague.

Likewise, this applies even to diagnoses made BEFORE the law was passed-- a clear ex post facto law, since the person had no way of knowing this risk of such a positive diagnosis, prior to subjecting themself to it; it's also a violation of Due Process, since they had no fair warning.

Finally, this is likewise a state's denial of equal protection under the law, in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Note that NONE of these stipulations pertain to whether a particular person is actually proven to be a threat to themselves or others: on the contrary, it's a 100% arbitrary.

Basically, the state is imposing a medieval stigma, and catering to public prejudice and ignorance, by sacrificing an unpopular minority against whom society holds an irrational fear, in order to get a law passed.

Despite that the ACLU has produced breakthroughs against public oppression of diagnosed "mental illness" to prevent persecution of persons who are not actually proven to be a threat to themselves or others-- or who are likewise duly convicted of any crime-- this area of persecution still exists in the right of persons to defend themselves.

Likewise, it excludes those persons who simply fail to get medical attention for such conditions-- and likewise discourages such persons from doing so, by risking such a diagnosis and thereby effectively disarming themselves from being able to defend themselves by carrying concealed-- which they usually need all the more due to being underprivileged and disadvantaged of finances, support, etc. due to their condition.

I know that laws are based on popularity more than legality, however I'd like to know if there is any way to challenge this law for persons who fall under this public stigma.
 

vn6869

New member
Ah, yes, wait until Obama care. When the anti-gun government bureaucrats will be reviewing and maintaining your health classification and records. Good Luck then. :no:

Actually these vague undefined terms leave a lot of us veterans exposed. If I recall after Obama took over there was talk of classifying us as potenital terrorists. :fie:
 

AZSATT

New member
Actually, many combat vets returning from theater operations are being "screened" to help determine and/or identify PTSD issues etc etc.

The answers to some of these "routine post-deployment screenings" can and likely will be used by Homeland Security to ID those who will not be legally obtaining firearms. Many GI's are aware of this, and whether they purpose to purchase firearms in their future or not, it fuels the fire to NOT disclose how you really feel - just tell them what they need to hear and clear out.

This is a very interesting topic, and made all the more convoluted when the mainstream media exploits each and every incident when someone who shouldn't have access to firearms shoots up some place and kills some people - typically in a gun-free area. The brush used in painting "shooters" keeps getting more and more broad. Of course, their spin is that NO ONE should have access to firearms because guns are "evil."

Trying to navigate the topic of mental health while addressing 2A rights... very, very difficult road to travel.
 

NOBAMA

New member
I know in NYS that you are not considered mentally ill unless you are hospitalized by some form of gov't agency, cops etc... Even if you admit yourself they do not consider that being mentally ill for a permit to carry concealed.
 

ricbak

New member
Azsatt, I think has brought up a couple good points. I feel that the vets (God Bless Our Vets) will be unfairly categorized. Mich Firearms Laws state:
~ (d) A statement by the applicant regarding whether he or she has a history of mental illness that would disqualify him or
her under subsection (7)(j) to (l) from receiving a license to carry a concealed pistol, and authorizing the concealed weapon licensing board to access the mental health records of the applicant relating to his or her mental health history. ~


It will not take much to classify a Returning Vet wrongly... Certainly this issue is going to be around awhile and I have a feeling will be getting much more intense.

 

BradAnderson

New member
I know in NYS that you are not considered mentally ill unless you are hospitalized by some form of gov't agency, cops etc... Even if you admit yourself they do not consider that being mentally ill for a permit to carry concealed.

However from what I understand, NYS also never ISSUES permits to anyone less than a rich and famous celebrity.
 

BradAnderson

New member
Azsatt, I think has brought up a couple good points. I feel that the vets (God Bless Our Vets) will be unfairly categorized. Mich Firearms Laws state:


It will not take much to classify a Returning Vet wrongly... Certainly this issue is going to be around awhile and I have a feeling will be getting much more intense.



No offense, but vets are no different from anyone else who has a nervous condition that does not in any way cause them to present an increased threat to themselves or others.

It's pretty ironic that a person can be denied a gun-permit because they were a victim of a violent crime and suffers from the fear of it happening again-- because they can't carry a gun to PREVENT it from happening again!

And once again, we see that the state is a self-fulfilling evil.
 

AZSATT

New member
I don't know, but I'd guess if the level of exposure or frequency of exposure to traumatic, life-altering circumstances matters, and if ONE such occurance can result in said nervous disorder, then I'd have to believe repeated exposure to several such instances would be... I don't know.... worse?

But I'm not looking to hijack the thread and make it all about our nation's walking wounded.

It is ironic 'the machine' that is our present system of Gov't is geared to devour and destroy us all if left unchecked.
 

NOBAMA

New member
However from what I understand, NYS also never ISSUES permits to anyone less than a rich and famous celebrity.

You are thinking about NY City. Remember there is more to NYS than NY City. In the rest of the state as long as you are in good standing with the law and no felonies you will have no problems getting a permit. It will take 6-9 months though.
 

ricbak

New member
BradA.. None Taken, There are some good thoughts that run through this site... There is a guy down the street that is on his third Tour to the ME. Who knows what has happened/involved with there. I do agree that the "Check Box" is pretty lame. To verify your own med records is next to impossible, if not extremely time consuming. How many doc, dentists, work physicals, ect... ect... have you done? Our system does have it's faults, but It is still SO much better than in England.... So the Question Then becomes How can We fix it. We are in fair shape here in PRMI, That just means we have to work more to improve what we have.

By the way, Welcome to the site...
 

BradAnderson

New member
I don't know, but I'd guess if the level of exposure or frequency of exposure to traumatic, life-altering circumstances matters, and if ONE such occurance can result in said nervous disorder, then I'd have to believe repeated exposure to several such instances would be... I don't know.... worse?

But I'm not looking to hijack the thread and make it all about our nation's walking wounded.

It is ironic 'the machine' that is our present system of Gov't is geared to devour and destroy us all if left unchecked.

Bingo: the government doesn't CARE a rat's ass about the individual-- just POWER. It BENEFITS from individual oppression-- i.e. it gets stronger as we get weaker:, and becomes the "Godfather" to whom we must ask favors and pay tribute for "protection", as people trade liberty for security. In fact the reason that the individual STATES, rather than the federal government, had well-regulated militias, was to prevent the federal military from being able to coerce the states by threat of force (Madison, Federalist No. 46).

PTSD results from perception of danger and experienced harm; and perception chiefly includes rational apprehension. If a person is disarmed, then the danger increases-- often dramatically-- and hence the rational apprehension that exacerbates the condition-- i.e. the people who need protection most, are deprived of it first, out the person's rational fear, being declared secondary to a irrational public fear of the person. And thus, might makes right.

PTSD theorists used to believe that the disorder only resulted from a single traumatic incident, however more recent studies are finding that it's also cumulative to long-term exposure, largely in response to an inescapable and helpless experience of harm or danger.
Likewise,imply IGNORING a real danger is completely insane.

And there's nothing ionic about government destroying us: Jefferson was clear about the need for eternal vigilance and consent of the governed. William Pitt likewise observed that "necessity" was always the plea of the tyrant and the creed of slaves, being the argument for every destuction of human freedom (ala the "necessary" German gun-bans which enabled to the "necessary" genocide that followed as a matter of course).

Here, we have society arbitrarily disarming people selectively, based on pure stigma and public hysteria-- i.e. mob-rule and popularity-contests, rather than blind justice. It's simply inevitable, that government without guard-rails simply follows the path of least resistance to chaos and tyranny.
 
Last edited:

NCjones

New member
I don't remember which state, but in one state I was disqualified for their CCW. Their application states if you are receiving disability from the SSA then you are considered mentally ill.

I receive disability for PTSD, which disqualified me.
 

BradAnderson

New member
Actually, many combat vets returning from theater operations are being "screened" to help determine and/or identify PTSD issues etc etc.

The answers to some of these "routine post-deployment screenings" can and likely will be used by Homeland Security to ID those who will not be legally obtaining firearms. Many GI's are aware of this, and whether they purpose to purchase firearms in their future or not, it fuels the fire to NOT disclose how you really feel - just tell them what they need to hear and clear out.

This is a very interesting topic, and made all the more convoluted when the mainstream media exploits each and every incident when someone who shouldn't have access to firearms shoots up some place and kills some people - typically in a gun-free area. The brush used in painting "shooters" keeps getting more and more broad. Of course, their spin is that NO ONE should have access to firearms because guns are "evil."

Trying to navigate the topic of mental health while addressing 2A rights... very, very difficult road to travel.

What do you mean? Statistically, such non-adjudicated persons are no more likely to commit gun-crimes than the general population. They're simply an easy target, and so are "red-flagged" and blown out of proportion by the general media whenever an incident occurs.

The problem is most difficult, when involving disability-payments; then the person is forced to choose between their gun-rights and their benefits.

In any event, it's ALWAYS definitely best to classify the problem as something physical like chronic fatigue rather than ssomething "mental" like depression or PTSD-- once you get that stigma on you, it NEVER comes off in terms of public hysteria. For example, the questionairre for the CCW-application reads "Have you EVER been diagnosed with a mental illness?"

Furthermore, by signing the form,you ALSO give them pemission to search all medical-records in order to verify your statement; and if you're wrong, you will be prosecuted for perjury.

(Thus we see as usual, that the government is under NO obligation to protect you- but they will use ANY opportunity to persecute and punish you.)

Of course this is a pure 14th Amendment violation to Equal Protection-- i.e. denying permits to persons based on purely arbitrary criteria, with asolutely no evidence of increased dangers to themselves or others. But again, that requires challenging it in court-- and the state has unlimited funds.
 

BradAnderson

New member
I don't remember which state, but in one state I was disqualified for their CCW. Their application states if you are receiving disability from the SSA then you are considered mentally ill.

I receive disability for PTSD, which disqualified me.

Yep, me too. You should ALWAYS try to classify your condition as something "physical" like Chronic Fatigue, since that won't involve the public same public hysteria.
 

Anthony_I_Am

New member
Yep, me too. You should ALWAYS try to classify your condition as something "physical" like Chronic Fatigue, since that won't involve the public same public hysteria.



My VA psych. asked me if I owned any guns a couple months ago. I told her yes (without thinking thru to reason for the question) and she said "I don't think with PTSD you are supposed to own any guns". I didn't comment back. I figured any rebuttal would draw more attention to the matter. She was typing on the PC the whole time so I am sure she made a note of it in her "files". I guess I fucked up.

Nobody has come knocking yet. I should buy a couple of airsoft guns so if they do I can turn them over. :)
 

BradAnderson

New member
BradA.. None Taken, There are some good thoughts that run through this site... There is a guy down the street that is on his third Tour to the ME. Who knows what has happened/involved with there. I do agree that the "Check Box" is pretty lame. To verify your own med records is next to impossible, if not extremely time consuming. How many doc, dentists, work physicals, ect... ect... have you done? Our system does have it's faults, but It is still SO much better than in England.... So the Question Then becomes How can We fix it. We are in fair shape here in PRMI, That just means we have to work more to improve what we have.

By the way, Welcome to the site...

"Better than England" isn't saying much; our system is reallly an empire in disguise, since the Supreme Court rubber-stamps laws that violate the Constitution, but strikes down laws that uphold it.
The 2nd Amendment is case-in-point; US v. Cruikshank clearly shows that the federal govt considers the 2nd Amendment to be nothing but a guarantee to ITSELF of the right to an armed draft-pool-- while saying that citizens are at the mercy of the states in order to protect them from crime.

Nevermind that Madison expressly stated in Federalist No. 46, that the militia exist to arm the people, so that they could choose to defend their states against federal abuses!

The point is, that America is a federal republic of sovereign states-- NOT an empire over subordinate states.
A federal republic of states, by definition, CANNOT BE a nation-- UNLESS it's an empire!
If they are free states, then they MUST be sovereign.
 

BradAnderson

New member
My VA psych. asked me if I owned any guns a couple months ago. I told her yes (without thinking thru to reason for the question) and she said "I don't think with PTSD you are supposed to own any guns". I didn't comment back. I figured any rebuttal would draw more attention to the matter. She was typing on the PC the whole time so I am sure she made a note of it in her "files". I guess I fucked up.

Nobody has come knocking yet. I should buy a couple of airsoft guns so if they do I can turn them over. :)

Well you can't lie, so just say "Why do you ask?"

THEN say "Can you cite the regulation?" and watch them go blank, since there IS no such regulation.

Put THEM on the spot.
 

ricbak

New member
Well you can't lie, so just say "Why do you ask?"

THEN say "Can you cite the regulation?" and watch them go blank, since there IS no such regulation.

Put THEM on the spot.

I did that BA, Asked why this question is in here... The answer was REALLY Lame.. "These forms come from Detroit, Ask them,,,,"

I left the question unanswered..
 

Ropadope

eHarmony Reject
What mental illness ??

If I've taken an anti depressent for anxiety, is that necessarily a "mental Illness?"

Point being, it's very subjective in my opinion. If I've been committed to a psych ward under unvoluntary conditions and diagnosed with Schizophrenia then I can see the point, but as mentioned, just taking an anti depressent for something like anxiety or enduring the loss of a loved one is not a "mental Illness" in my opinion.

It's very subjective and yet the queston that is asked on the application leaves much to be open to discussion.
 

New Threads

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
49,625
Messages
626,983
Members
74,753
Latest member
russvb
Top