Ga. backs relaxing gun laws for mentally ill Published - Mar 07 2013 04:45PM EST
RAY HENRY, Associated Press
ATLANTA (AP) — While some states push to tighten gun control laws after the Connecticut school massacre, some lawmakers in gun-friendly Georgia want to ease rules preventing some mentally ill people from getting licenses to carry firearms.
Legislators in Georgia's House voted 117-56 on Thursday to allow people who have voluntarily sought inpatient treatment for mental illness or substance abuse to get licenses. The same bill also attempts to make it easier for officials to check on whether applicants have ever received involuntary treatment. Georgia also may change its laws to allow people to carry guns in churches, bars and on college campuses, contrary to what's happening elsewhere in the United States.
Judges in Georgia now have discretion over whether to grant a license to carry a weapon to anyone who has received inpatient treatment at a mental hospital or substance abuse treatment center in the last five years, whether it's voluntary or not.
"Simply being hospitalized doesn't make a person a criminal or a threat," said Rep. Rick Jasperse, R-Jasper, the bill sponsor, in a statement. The legislation now heads to the state Senate.
That change is part of a larger package showcasing the local Republican philosophy on guns. The plan, backed by a gun owners group called GeorgiaCarry.Org, would allow people to carry weapons in churches, bars and college campuses — despite the objections of higher education officials. In response to a shooting rampage that killed 26 people in Connecticut, it would allow school officials to arm their employees.
Democrats resisted the proposal, although they conceded it would likely pass in the GOP-dominated House of Representatives. They argued that allowing guns in more places will not make society safer and may lead to more deaths.
"I'm not, by nature, a worrier," said Rep. Scott Holcomb, a Democrat. "But I worry that the mix of alcohol, drugs, sex and immaturity on college campuses could be fatal."
The law may make it easier for judges to check on some mental health issues. Right now, judges can require that people seeking a license authorize the release of treatment records and allow the judge to get a recommendation from treatment providers. Because there is no single clearinghouse for treatment information, judges would have to send waivers to multiple hospitals or treatment centers to get that information.
By contrast, Jasperse's bill would require that courts submit involuntary treatment orders to a database that would be consulted before judges issue licenses to carry weapons. The legislation would also ban people whom law enforcement officials hear making threats against others in the last five years from carrying weapons. Those represented by guardians or conservators because of mental illness or drug abuse would also be disqualified.
One prosecutor said he was concerned about the provision because not everyone with serious mental illness is forced to receive treatment, meaning they would be eligible to carry weapons.
"My concern would be there's got to be people who voluntarily seek inpatient treatment who wouldn't be any less dangerous than if they're sent there involuntarily," Cobb County District Attorney Vic Reynolds said Wednesday.
Federal law prohibits giving or selling guns to anyone who judged to be "mentally defective" or those committed to a mental institution. States set their own standards on who can carry weapons. Some states use the same mental health threshold when deciding whether someone should be prohibited from carrying a gun.
Other states like Georgia have gone further. For example, Massachusetts allows authorities to deny people a license to carry if applicants have been confined for mental health treatment, according to a survey by the National Conference of State Legislatures. Mississippi will deny licenses to people who have been committed, voluntary or otherwise, unless a psychiatrist testifies they have been free of mental illness for five years. Texas considers psychiatric hospitalization grounds for being refused to carry a concealed weapon.
The legislation is backed by GeorgiaCarry.Org, a gun owners group that has been more aggressive about expanding rights to carry weapons in Georgia than the National Rifle Association, which supports a more limited slate of changes.
Jerry Henry, executive director of GeorgiaCarry.Org, said the original law was too restrictive and could, for example, deny a license to military veterans voluntarily seeking help for stress-related disorders.
"If he seeks health treatment on his own it should not be held against him," Henry said.
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
Since no one else has chimed in, I guess I'll through my opinion in and say that this is a horrible idea. Guns are dangerous in the wrong hands, especially the mentally ill. Amazed that someone would consider such a horrible law, no matter where you stand on the gun debate. This defies common sense.
Since no one else has chimed in, I guess I'll through my opinion in and say that this is a horrible idea. Guns are dangerous in the wrong hands, especially the mentally ill. Amazed that someone would consider such a horrible law, no matter where you stand on the gun debate. This defies common sense.
So if a person that checks themselves in for treatment for say anxiety or depression(like many returning troops) they do not have a right to armed self defense?
57 million Americans are diagnosed with mental illness each year. That's about 20% of the population. Mental illness includes anorexia, alcoholism, obsessive compulsive behavior, autism spectrum disorder and more.
Do you believe a person who sought treatment for depression at 17 shouldn't be able to own a gun at 30?
So if a person that checks themselves in for treatment for say anxiety or depression(like many returning troops) they do not have a right to armed self defense? NO! 57 million Americans are diagnosed with mental illness each year. That's about 20% of the population. Mental illness includes anorexia, alcoholism, obsessive compulsive behavior, autism spectrum disorder and more.
Do you believe a person who sought treatment for depression at 17 shouldn't be able to own a gun at 30? NO!
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
Mental Illness is Not Simply a Brain Disease Last month, Andrew Brown writing for the UK’s Guardian, noted when Professor David Nutt kept referring to depression as a “brain disease” on a popular UK television program. We commend Andrew Brown for his calling out Professor Nutt in trying to dumb down the portrayal of mental disorders to simply “brain diseases.” Mental disorders remain complex disorders that involve all aspect of a person’s functioning and life — their brain and biology, their psychological makeup and personality, and their social interactions and relationships with others. The cause isn’t just one of these things in the vast majority of people who have a mental illness — the cause is all of these things, in differing proportions.
Would you support a federal law that restricts access to guns to soldiers IN COMBAT that seek treatment for mental illness?
If someone gets treated for anxiety or depression at 17 should they be able to join the military at 21?
You want to continue to spin it in a direction for your agenda, fine.....
If treated for metal illness, they should be removed from combat zone, period...that's what I would support. They then should be evaluated for a general discharge....that's what I would support. If treated for metal illness prior to signing up for the military, they should be denied...that's what I would support.
Okay, go ahead, next step in your agenda!
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
You want to continue to spin it in a direction for your agenda, fine.....
If treated for metal illness, they should be removed from combat zone, period...that's what I would support. They then should be evaluated for a general discharge....that's what I would support. If treated for metal illness prior to signing up for the military, they should be denied...that's what I would support.
Okay, go ahead, next step in your agenda!
Not bad, at least you are consistent.
You may want to start with restricting the active duty military people with "mental illness" since they have the access to the most guns. Based on quick research of the current military practice, it seems that if they are treated for mental illness it is done discretely to not affect their military careers and to prevent people with mental illness from not seeking treatment and causing more harm, to other or themselves. I would hate to see a similar response to civilians that have mild cases of depression or anxiety and decide to forego treatment because they don't want to see their rights to own a gun for self defense.
But whocares about unintended consequences, as long as the decision are made with good intentions.
Based on quick research of the current military practice, it seems that if they are treated for mental illness it is done discretely to not affect their military careers...
show me reputable facts to support this
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
Mental Illness Is the Leading Cause of Hospitalization for Active-Duty Troops By Bob Brewin, Nextgov.com
Updated: May 17, 2012 | 7:55 p.m. May 17, 2012 | 7:35 p.m. The Defense and Veterans Affairs departments have spent almost $2 billion since 2001 to buy drugs to treat mental illness and post-traumatic stress disorder despite growing evidence some of those drugs exacerbate PTSD symptoms, a Nextgov investigation shows. In addition, military research released this week highlighted that Defense faces what one Army clinician called an epidemic of mental illness.
Despite this vast expenditure on psychotropic drugs since the beginning of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, mental illness ranks as the leading cause of hospitalization for active-duty troops, according to a report published by the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center in the April issue of its Medical Surveillance Monthly Report, released on Monday. Mental-health disorders stood out as the leading cause of hospitalization of active-duty service members in 2007, 2009, and 2011, the report noted.
AFHSC also reported that troops seeking help for mental health problems ranked third in outpatient visits in all treatment categories, behind unspecified “other” conditions -- which included routine physicals, immunizations, and predeployment assessments -- and musculoskeletal injuries during the same time period.
According to the report, the military hospitalized 21,735 active-duty personnel for mental disorders in 2011, an increase of more than 30 percent from 2009, when 15,339 troops needed hospital treatment for mental- health problems. Hospitalizations in 2009 jumped 8 percent from the 14,112 troops hospitalized for mental health reasons in 2007.
“The crude hospitalization rate for mental disorders in the Army was approximately 70 percent higher than in the Marine Corps and more than twice as high than in the other services” in 2011, AFHSC said, noting that 13,003 soldiers were admitted to hospitals for mental health treatment that year.
The surveillance center identified 1,890,111 outpatient visits for mental-health disorders in 2011, or more visits than the number of troops on active duty that year -- 1,425,113 -- indicating multiple visits by individual troops. Outpatient treatment for mental-health care in 2011 marked a 21 percent increase over 1,506,671 visits in 2009 and a 37 percent increase over the 946,187 mental-disorder outpatient visits in 2007.
An active-duty Army doctor who declined to be identified for publication said the outpatient statistics that AFHSC compiled may be somewhat misleading because many relatively mild mental-health conditions increasingly are subject to screening and identification.
But the “stunning growth in numbers and rates of mental health hospitalizations ... is undeniable evidence of an unprecedented and arguably unmanageable epidemic that is now threatening the viability of the force,” he wrote in an e-mail.
Treatment Challenges
Top military leaders recently have acknowledged that some of the prescription drugs used to treat mental illness, including second-generation antipsychotic drugs—also known as atypical antipsychotics—such as Seroquel and Risperidone, may be exacerbating the problem.
Dr. Jonathan Woodson, assistant Defense secretary for health affairs, said in a Feb. 22 memo on drug use, “articles in popular media and the concern of several national and military leaders in recent months have raised the question of whether certain psychoactive medications are inappropriately prescribed for post-traumatic stress disorder.”
In the memo, first reported by Army Times on May 3, he noted that 1.4 percent of soldiers and 0.7 percent of Marines on active duty in 2010 -- about 11,000 troops -- received prescriptions for Seroquel. Woodson told military clinicians to use caution when prescribing atypical antipsychotics as sleep aids or to manage irritability and anger. He said military health care providers should prescribe the lowest drug dose possible and recommend “non-medication therapy options” to treat PTSD.
In April, the Army Medical Command warned that the use of benzodiazepine tranquilizers such as Xanax and Valium to treat PTSD could intensify combat stress symptoms and lead to addiction.
Seven months earlier, in September 2011, the Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury emphatically warned against their use. In its Co-Occurring Conditions Toolkit, the center said in boldface: “There is evidence against the use of benzodiazepines in PTSD management as it may cause HARM. Strongly recommend against the use of benzodiazepines for treatment of PTSD.”
The Defense center also recommended against the use of Seroquel and another atypical antipsychotic to treat PTSD saying, in boldface, “evidence does NOT support the use of atypical antipsychotics as a monotherapy for PTSD.”
Data provided to Nextgov by the Defense Logistics Agency shows the Defense Department spent $44.1 million on benzodiazepines from October 2001 to March 2012. The Veterans Affairs Department said it spent $72.1 million on benzodiazepines during the same period.
VA told Nextgov in April that it spent $846 million on Seroquel since 2001 and $717 million on Risperidone, another atypical antipsychotic, during the same period.
Defense has spent $14.1 million on Seroquel and $74 million on Risperidone since 2001.
A paper published by VA researchers in August 2011 said Risperidone was no more effective than a placebo in treating PTSD. The Army acknowledged VA’s research in its April 10 policy memo, but the February 2012 Woodson memo made no mention of Risperidone.
The Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, which provides health care for Navy and Marine Corps personnel, told Nextgov in an e-mail that the bureau “concurs with the Army's policy that benzodiazepines are relatively contraindicated and should be avoided in the treatment of PTSD.”
But Shoshona Pilip-Florea, a bureau spokeswoman, said, “there are many scenarios where the judicious prescription of benzodiazepines may be appropriate, [including] when the clinician's assessment and clinical judgment warrant treatment with this class of medications.” She added, “Navy Medicine has not explicitly warned clinicians not to use benzodiazepines to treat patients with PTSD because some of these patients may benefit from treatment with a benzodiazepine based on the clinician's assessment and clinical judgment.”
Jonathan Stock, a spokesman for the Air Force Surgeon General, said the Air Force has not prohibited providers from using benzodiazepines in cases of PTSD. “It is important to note that every medication has associated cautions and contraindications. Prescribing providers are required to understand the contraindications and precautions of the medications they prescribe,” he said.
VA and DLA did not provide details on how many individual doses of benzodiazepines they have purchased since 2001, but they receive substantial bulk discounts. The active-duty Army doctor said this could be as low as $1 dollar per pill, or a total of 116 million doses since 2001, which work out to more than 100 benzodiazepine pills per person on active duty today.
Besides a mental-health epidemic, the Army clinician said the Pentagon also faces the epidemic consequences of widespread psychotropic drug use, which military researchers warned about in a 2008 report. It showed that one of 14 members of a 701-man Army infantry battalion had been prescribed antianxiety drugs before deployment.
it is done discretely to not affect their military careers
I don't fget that from the article at all...seems like it's very out in the open and nothing being hidden or swept under the rug. Also, "prescribed anxiety drugs before deployment"....that doesn't have enough substance to even consider. These are young people going into a war zone not knowing if the will live or die. I'd be more concerned about anyone not being anxious in that situation. Since you have no experience in that situation, I cna see where you tag it as a mental illness....I tag it as normal behavior.
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
You want to continue to spin it in a direction for your agenda, fine.....
If treated for metal illness, they should be removed from combat zone, period...that's what I would support. They then should be evaluated for a general discharge....that's what I would support. If treated for metal illness prior to signing up for the military, they should be denied...that's what I would support.
Okay, go ahead, next step in your agenda!
Your position is perfectly clear, and your point is well taken.
The exact issue is not about treatment for depression, but for voluntary admission to "inpatient treatment" vs. mandatory inpatient treatment. They are proposing not denying licenses except for non-voluntary inpatient treatment.
Your viewpoint seems to be anyone who ever took a pill for depression should be denied military service and also a gun license.
I don't fget that from the article at all...seems like it's very out in the open and nothing being hidden or swept under the rug. Also, "prescribed anxiety drugs before deployment"....that doesn't have enough substance to even consider. These are young people going into a war zone not knowing if the will live or die. I'd be more concerned about anyone not being anxious in that situation. Since you have no experience in that situation, I cna see where you tag it as a mental illness....I tag it as normal behavior.
You can't have it both ways. If you want gun licenses denied for anxiety treated people, it should exclude them from military service or police work for life.
Are you saying that anxiety should not be a factor in gun licensing and military service, but depression should be?
A Mixed Message about Stigma in Military Mental Health Care
The military keeps talking about eliminating stigma related to seeking mental health treatment. Then why don’t they change the policies that promote it?
To decrease stigma, the Army now uses the term “behavioral health.” The Defense Department – of which the Army is a part — prefers “psychological health.” They have developed numerous training regimes for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, suicide prevention and the importance of seeking treatment. They have substantially increased access to mental-health providers and are involving primary-care teams and other care agencies in the efforts.
Nonetheless, there are numerous policies that have a very mixed message. One of the major ones is the Deployment Limiting Psychiatric Conditions policy, issued in November of 2006.
It’s a well-intentioned policy, meant to avoid service members being plucked from psychiatric hospitals and sent to the battlefield. However it has numerous negative unintended consequences.
The policy requires that service members be stable for three months on their medication before deploying. Otherwise they need a waiver from Central Command (CENTCOM). It sounds good, but leads troops to avoid seeking mental-health treatment.
Remember in this era of high unemployment, service members want to keep their jobs, and deployment is part of keeping your job and getting promoted. Staying behind for three months because you have had your sertraline (Zoloft) switched to fluoxetine (Prozac) —both very safe and common antidepressants, also used for the treatment of PTSD—is not good for unit cohesion, or promotion. There are many other policies that discourage treatment. In the Navy, if you are on antidepressants, you need flag (eg. the Navy equivalent of an Army general) officer approval before you can hold a firearm. Who wants to have a very high-ranking officer sign off on your ability to go to the firing range?
Logged
