Call for gun licence mental health quiz

Terrier

Irish Indepdent 24/02/2005

APPLICANTS for firearms licences should be asked whether they have a history of mental illness, according to a group representing gun club members.

At present, there is no provision whereby people applying for a gun licence have to declare they have a history of mental illness, said Des Crofton, of the National Association of Regional Game Councils (NARGC).

Speaking to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Justice about the Criminal Justice Bill 2004, Mr Crofton said people needed to be questioned about their mental health on application forms for gun licences.

This would take the form of a box on the application which could be ticked. Positive answers would mean that gardai could ask the applicant if they can question their doctor about their current condition.

However, Mr Crofton said that this did not "trigger an immediate block" of gun licences for those who have a history of mental illness.

Irishglockfan

WTF?????? Is he thinking of???
We have enough Big Brother meddling in shooting in Ireland without adding to it by our own!! Great! so now hand over confidential medical information as well?
Doctors wont hand out YOUR OWN medical file to YOU the patient!!So are they going to hand it out to the police?You cant get your medical info under the DPA either as most Docs write out their files and the DPA covers only electronic storage.
What classifies as "mental problems"? Everyone somtimes feels under the weather or slightly depressed.Doesnt put you in the category of a psycho loon.But the way things are done around here it could be done so.
Anyway do you think anyone is going to be nuts enough[no pun intended] to tick the box saying yes I have a problem??I personally know of two people who are classified paranoid schsophrenics[sic]who are liscensed firearm holders and the gardai know this and liscense them happilly every year.Is this going to stop people I know are unstable from getting firearms?If i know two how many else are out there?

What next?Are we going to be going down the GB route looking for strangers who know us vaugely to go referee for our annual applications??
Not only that the firearms act has a provision for this.Unsound mind or intemperate habits.

It would be far smarter to do the following;anyone caught driving under the influence ,for the period you lose your driving liscense your gun liscense is suspended.if you cant be trusted to drink and drive ,can you be trusted to posses and use a firearm?That is a standard on the continent.
This mental health thing has caused chaos in Germany,no one knows who administers it,your doctor wont do it,the police dont want to know about it,all shooting organisations are against it,the only one that seemingly does it is the TUV,which on equivlent here is the NCT!!Imagine your local NCT checking you out for your full bag of marbles?

This is a stupid and badly thought out move,and obviously is stemming from the Abbylara incident.It almost gets the people who allowed Carthy to have a gun off the hook as well,as the people who suggested this that he be allowed a gun again were doctors and head shrinkers.
Talk about hanging the innocent,the average Irish gun owner gets it in the neck again.
While the Ramboesque tactics of the Kill em all ,and let somone else sort it out
"elite" [more like Keystone Cops]ERU is mostly exeronated.

I sincerely hope this is a chopped and channelled article,rather than the full story of what Des said.If it is the full article,with friends like this ,who needs enemies? :mad:

Sparks

I know that the Barr tribunal was thinking of recommending that applicants be required to undergo psychological evaluation before issueing (or renewing) a firearms licence, but since that's a procedure that requires upwards of a fortnight under constant observation it's more than a little unworkable. Other suggestions included your doctor or lawyer being required to inform the gardai if a patient/client who owned a firearm was displaying symptoms of mental illness, despite the fact that a GP isn't qualified to make that kind of professional observation and neither is a soliciter.

And from what I remember, I was of the impression that the NARGC was strongly opposed to those suggestions. I'd be rather surprised if they've altered that position (not to mention rather unimpressed). And the idea that a box that you tick to indicate you're not mentally unwell is a bit daft - I mean, the insane never think that they are insane, with the possible exception of sociopaths, and they have no sense of concience anyway so lying isn't going to be a major hassle to them. A ticked box would be a sense of false security and a waste of paper and ink, no more.

gouda

Irishglockfan wrote:

WTF?????? Is he thinking of???
We have enough Big Brother meddling in shooting in Ireland without adding to it by our own!! Great! so now hand over confidential medical information as well?
Doctors wont hand out YOUR OWN medical file to YOU the patient!!So are they going to hand it out to the police?You cant get your medical info under the DPA either as most Docs write out their files and the DPA covers only electronic storage.
What classifies as "mental problems"? Everyone somtimes feels under the weather or slightly depressed.Doesnt put you in the category of a psycho loon.But the way things are done around here it could be done so.
Anyway do you think anyone is going to be nuts enough[no pun intended] to tick the box saying yes I have a problem??I personally know of two people who are classified paranoid schsophrenics[sic]who are liscensed firearm holders and the gardai know this and liscense them happilly every year.Is this going to stop people I know are unstable from getting firearms?If i know two how many else are out there?

What next?Are we going to be going down the GB route looking for strangers who know us vaugely to go referee for our annual applications??
Not only that the firearms act has a provision for this.Unsound mind or intemperate habits.

It would be far smarter to do the following;anyone caught driving under the influence ,for the period you lose your driving liscense your gun liscense is suspended.if you cant be trusted to drink and drive ,can you be trusted to posses and use a firearm?That is a standard on the continent.
This mental health thing has caused chaos in Germany,no one knows who administers it,your doctor wont do it,the police dont want to know about it,all shooting organisations are against it,the only one that seemingly does it is the TUV,which on equivlent here is the NCT!!Imagine your local NCT checking you out for your full bag of marbles?

This is a stupid and badly thought out move,and obviously is stemming from the Abbylara incident.It almost gets the people who allowed Carthy to have a gun off the hook as well,as the people who suggested this that he be allowed a gun again were doctors and head shrinkers.
Talk about hanging the innocent,the average Irish gun owner gets it in the neck again.
While the Ramboesque tactics of the Kill em all ,and let somone else sort it out
"elite" [more like Keystone Cops]ERU is mostly exeronated.

I sincerely hope this is a chopped and channelled article,rather than the full story of what Des said.If it is the full article,with friends like this ,who needs enemies? :mad:

WOW! Glock I can almost see the veins in your neck sticking out. Perhaps an email to Des would clarify? It wouldn't be the first time a newspaper was selective about quoting people. The best person to explain the situation is Des himself.

Sparks

I've ordered the videotape of the meeting so I should be able to get what Des said as an MP3 file from it and I'll stick it up here. Should take a few days though.

Traumadoc

We are required by law in australia to inform the firearms branch of any patient who has a mental illness and who makes threats to hurt themselves/ others - and who has or claims to have a firearm.

I dont see what the problem is- if you apply for a drivers licence you have to have a medical clearance-and some of your own personal medical history is passed onto a government agency, so if you have epilepsy for example you cannot drive until you illness is under control.
Many people would see this as a good idea so I dont see any problem with having a box on an application asking "do you have a mental ilness?"
I would see it as more important than having written permission from two landowners which seems to be the most important exclusive criteria at the moment.

civdef

WOW! Glock I can almost see the veins in your neck sticking out.

Hmm, anger managment issues - quick call the men in white coats and confiscate his guns...

I wouldn't have much problem with people with known mental health issues of a potentially serious nature facing detailed scrutiny before being granted a licence or with a view to revoking one if they already have one. The problem is the methodology. The Barr tribunal has shown very clearly the problems with "expert opinion" (John Carthy's psychiatrist wrote a letter to his local giards saying he was perfectly fit to have his shotgun back).

I don't think it would be unreasonable if some reporting mechanism was researched where a doctor could notify the Gardai if a firearms licence holder was exhibiting serious symptoms of a dangerous nature which could potentially lead to harm to themselves or others. I would include alcoholism/drug abuse in these. The problem of course lies in striking a balance between public safety and confidentiality. There is also the small issue of how the doctor would know the person is a licence holder. Contrary to Sparks's assertion, I reckon that a GP would be well qualified to do this in certain circumstances, subject to specialist consultation.

This is a very delicate and serious subject which needs to be approached with care and attention to detail and with the involvement of all parties concerned. Other countries systems should be carefully examined to see what does and doesn't work. The last thing we need is the roughshod approach of hasty unworkable legislation as has been seen abroad.

Sparks

Civ, McCarthy's GP stated that he was mentally unfit to hold a firearms licence, but his psychiatrist (who didn't know the details of how McCarthy's firearms cert was revoked) wrote a second letter to the local superintendent saying he was fit, and we all know the rest of that story. In this case, the GP was the correct one; but GPs generally aren't psychiatrists or psychologists, they can't be considered to be mental health experts and I think the Irish medical associations would have something to say on the matter!

Frankly, there hasn't been a proven need for this measure as yet. McCarthy's case isn't proof of a need for mandatory psychological assessment, it's proof of a need for better training in firearms legislation for gardai. McCarthy was reported to have discharged a firearm at people, there was conflicting medical opinion on his mental health - he should not have been reissued with a firearms certificate without the superintendent and his psychiatrist having a sit-down. That's just common sense and Article 4 of the firearms act.

I don't see how a ticked box would have solved the problem in McCarthy's case, by the way. Having the subject of the inquiry tick the box would hardly be effective as a diagnostic tool for the mental health profession, after all! Surely there's a principle that says that if you bring in a law to address a problem, that that law should be sufficent to prevent the problem occouring, had it been there in the first place?

And this hasn't even touched on the frankly rather scary state of some aspects of the mental health system in this country, to which I would not care to be entrusted for any reason, let alone for a fortnight of observation so I could be ruled sane!

civdef

Normally your GP has known you (and probably the people around you) for years, a psychiatrist may have to make a diagnosis based on a couple of sessions, I don't think you can rule out the GP's value on this.

What basis in current law would there be for the super and psychiatrist to have "sat down" together? The Garda would have no legal power to require cooperation from the doctor, and the doctor would have to make their own ethical decision about the danger posed by their patient. As Irishglockfan says, there are people out there who have serious problems that the Gardai need to know about when issuing/renewing licences.

As for the ticked box, thats easy. Just make is a legal declaration - "have you ever or do you currently suffer from the any of the following conditions - if so give details" Just like on your driving licence application. Giving false or incomplete details would be immediate grounds for revoking/refusing the licence. Answering "yes" need not debar you from having a licence - but it's much better if an informed decision was made, perhaps on referral to a specialist board consosting of experts in the various matters involved.

Sparks

civdef wrote:

Normally your GP has known you (and probably the people around you) for years, a psychiatrist may have to make a diagnosis based on a couple of sessions, I don't think you can rule out the GP's value on this.

In those circumstances, certainly not - but I know that "my" GP has seen me all of once in ten years, so the idea that she could be called on to determine my mental state is somewhat... disturbing! Plus, I'm pretty sure that a GP couldn't be called as an expert in psychology. I'd want to go check it out to be definite though.

What basis in current law would there be for the super and psychiatrist to have "sat down" together?

None, nor would any be needed. The onus is on the superintendent to be certain that the applicant for a firearms licence is not of "intemperate habits" or "unsound mind", so it's his job to be certain of that. If the GP says no and the psychologist says yes, as in McCarthy's case, it's up to the superintendent to figure out what the consensus should be and the common sense approach to that says to talk to both of them (together if at all possible) and sort it out. It's sobering to think that one conference call could have avoided that whole mess...

The Garda would have no legal power to require cooperation from the doctor, and the doctor would have to make their own ethical decision about the danger posed by their patient.

Except that in this case, the patient-doctor privilege had already been breached by both the GP and the psychiatrist. There wasn't any need to "require" cooperation from either, a simple request was all that was warranted.

As Irishglockfan says, there are people out there who have serious problems that the Gardai need to know about when issuing/renewing licences.

Very true, but as you said civ, kneejerk legislation is rarely good. This is going to be a pretty contentious bill without the firearms stuff - to put in a fundamental change to the firearms legislation and privacy legislation and so forth, should not be done in an afterthought way like this bill is going to be!

As for the ticked box, thats easy. Just make is a legal declaration - "have you ever or do you currently suffer from the any of the following conditions - if so give details" Just like on your driving licence application. Giving false or incomplete details would be immediate grounds for revoking/refusing the licence. Answering "yes" need not debar you from having a licence - but it's much better if an informed decision was made, perhaps on referral to a specialist board consosting of experts in the various matters involved.

Thing is, those ticked boxes only act to cover backsides after something has gone horribly wrong, they don't prevent it from going wrong in the first place. If we're to bring in new regulations, I'd rather see them being good for something - this "tick the box if you're insane" idea isn't going to do any good at all.

Traumadoc

Interestingly most recent figures give the incidence of a mental illness to be greater than 20% of the general population in any given year.

Sparks

Traumadoc wrote:

Interestingly most recent figures give the incidence of a mental illness to be greater than 20% of the general population in any given year.

Yes, and McCarthy's psychologist said so to the Barr Tribunal and claimed it meant that therefore 20% of all firearms owners were mentally ill. Which only shows that psychologists don't make good statisticians - there is nothing to show that the population of firearms owners is a representative subsample of the general population (in other words, there's no reason to think that we're not made up of the 80% of the population that are mentally healthy, and there is reason to think we are, given that every one of us has to convince at least one garda for at least a few minutes that we're not mentally ill).

Irishglockfan

Have any of youse seen the US application for a firearms purchase? It has plenty of tickable boxes like
;have you ever smoked marijuana or used illegal drugs?Are you a proscribed person?Are you a member of an organisation hostile to the United States Govt and its people?Are you an illegal alien?Do you suffer from mental illness?
Now you add things like instant check,and how many law abideing citizens own firearms and have smoked the odd reefer joint?
Or how many folks who own guns protest and protested the Vietnam war or are protesting out about Iraq?Or do drugs and own guns[Hunter S Thompson decsd springs to mind]?
So what I am saying is; if in the USA where this has been the norm for years,and where nowadays you lose your gun rights ownership,even if you are a LEO because you had a bitch up with your better half,and she moans to the local welfare authorthies and as a LEO you are deskbound sans firearm,where the instant federal backround check should say wether you are a criminal or not.AND it is a major trouble to lie on those application forms.
All this fails miserably,because the folks tick consistently the correct boxes despite their slight law or drug problems they can get guns legally.
What good will this form ticking do???
Now,unless somone comes in to the Garda station dressed as Julius Ceaser looking for a gun lic,how is a Gaurd going to know he is nuts or not???
Also how many folks have fibbed on their drivers lic about their eyesight??
Plenty ,and they are driving ok,maybe they just need specs for reading?
Unless we do it like the US that the DMV liscense office tests your eyesight there and then.Short sighted and medically unfit folks will drive cars here,and fib their medical forms.
Cost?who is going to pay for our "head shrink evaulation"?"
Also what will you/we do if there is a potentially anti gun zealot who has read Freud the wrong way?[Despite that Freud said that "a fear of weapons was a sign of an emotionally retarded and sexually insecure person." In his introduction to phsycology[sic]
Thanks but no thanks!! I really dont think we need any further meddling and pestering from the State in our lives.
This is really overkill to an isolated incident,that was no way a massacare on the Dunblane or other scale[Apart from the death by cop scenario ,that is the only American comparsion I can see]. I mean the guy had a double with bird shot.He didnt have an UZI and was checking out the local Mc Donalds!
As I said this is an ass covering exercise by those in power,and sofar seems aided&abbetted by one of ours.
A press release from Des would be a VERY good idea on this!!

Traumadoc

Most of the people responsible for the mass killings in colombine, Dunblane, Port Arthur did not have a treatable mental illness -they had personality disorders. (ie they were just bad)


Having a box "I do not suffer from a psychotic illness" to tick will keep everyone happy, like the driving licence.
It will not descriminate against 99.9% of us.

Irishglockfan

Thats fine Doc,as we all know the nudge nudge wink wink sort of law blind eye turning goes on all over the world.Trouble is when somthing goes badly wrong!There is a hue and cry and calls for more stringent checks,etc.Methinks it is best just not to moot or encourage silly ideas.As usually silly people in power get ideas above their natural intelluctual abilities and decide it is for our own good to enact very bad and odious laws which are of no benefit to the group being legislated against.

Sparks

Sparks wrote:

I've ordered the videotape of the meeting so I should be able to get what Des said as an MP3 file from it and I'll stick it up here. Should take a few days though.

Got this this morning and watched it. The Indo's article was rather accurate on what was said. There were questions put to Des on whether the mental heath assocations had been questioned, but there wasn't enough time to get an answer. Also mentioned were the need for written guidelines for interpreting the firearms legislation - much was made of the court records on this point - for gardai and training for the gardai in firearms legislation as well; Des stated that the amending of the Firearms Act in the Criminal Justice Bill was highly offensive; the point regarding under-16s shooters was also raised in their submission and challanged by a senator (who happened to be an NARGC member) - he felt the age limit should be 14 and seemed to think it was at present (it's actually 16), the NARGC feel it should be 12; the lack of a definition of "secure storage" was brought up; and the NARGC were then told they would be welcome to submit further written submissions to the Committee in the future.

I do have an MP3 of the session, but it's nearly an hour long and is 35Mb in size! I'll see if that's just a problem with encoding and if I can shrink it down far enough I'll post it up somewhere.

Sparks

Sparks wrote:

I do have an MP3 of the session, but it's nearly an hour long and is 35Mb in size! I'll see if that's just a problem with encoding and if I can shrink it down far enough I'll post it up somewhere.

Okay, I got it down to 5Mb and it's still easily understandable, so here it is.