Mental reports/drugs for firearms background checks

I'm as pro gun as they come, but I have some worries on the "mental" portion for background checks. Think this through with me. The FL shooter had mental issues since 7th grade and continued until he was 18. When he turned 18, he refused the mental treatment, and due to behavior issues was removed from his public school. The school system could not force this mental treatment once he turned 18. This is the info that should be in the NICS background check to prevent mental patients for not buying firearms. And he had to lie on the 4473 form question 11 F that he was not mental defective or ever been committed to a mental institution (which he had been). We MUST have a reliable back up in place with a data base that confirms or denies this part of the form.

If you are a pilot, you have to pass your medical to fly every 6 months (according to a friend of mine who is a pilot). If you had any depression or ADD/ADHD meds prescribed to you, your medical would immediately be pulled and you would not be allowed to pilot a plane for up to 90 days (per FAA info from my pilot friend). It is because it effects your thought process. There is talk that this is a system they may use for background checks on the mental portion.

Next, if the common person was on any ADD/ADHD meds, this is considered a "mental" drug.

I think we would all agree that the FL shooter should not have been able to purchase a firearm due to his mental problems. But where is the "line in the sand" for when it comes to "mental" issues. Obviously, there are different levels of mental illness, but where is this line for gun purchases.

There are a lot of people on Xanax for depression. Would this be included as mental issue? Are you not allowed to purchase a firearm during this time, after this time, or never?

There have been other cases where someone bought a firearm that had previously been seen by a doctor and was classified with mental issues or had criminal convictions. But the data on this person was never entered into the data base, so they passed the background portion to purchase a firearm. It was determined there was no funds available for someone to actually enter this data into the data base. There needs to be funding for this, big time!

Here's my question- Where is the line for mental defective and when someone should or should not be allowed to purchase a firearm. From what I am seeing on the news and topics of discussion, it may go all the way for any mental drug.

He at some point should have be involuntarily committed for psychiatric service. This for being s danger to yourself or others.
This should now be reported and flag you from buying a firearm.

You should then have a dr medically clear you to get off the list. Make the burden fall on a so called professional.

A couple of recent suicide pilots had mental problems.

if someone is on head pills then they should have to submit to an evaluation by a dr. who then declares them sane enough to own a weapon. after this it should have to go to a judge (patient not able to purchase till cleared in court) who then decides if it warrants a no buy/posses order.

there are just too many people who have been given opioids and other head pills due to the simplification of our medical system and the readiness of drs. to prescribe them (think "commission" for selling). hippa law will have to be changed before anything can be done, as it is drs. are very unwilling to report due to the hippa implications.

There's no question crazy a$$ white boys are the ones shooting up our schools. Got to be some common denominators tied to mental issues and environmental factors behind it.

Maybe it's as simple as they're the ones who have parents who afford the mind-altering drugs they start taking in 2nd Grade that sets them off several years later.

Can't follow you. The FL shooter was produced by the school system. He should've been pushed out where he would have been handled otherwise, like jail or dead in the street. Instead, they had him in a no child left behind arrest free zone, running him through the gauntlet of high school making sure he would hate and resent it. Keeping the school a gun free zone made it all the more likely he would attack.

This has nothing to do with guns and all to do with progressive agendas coming home to roost.

Everyone has a natural right to self-defense. Everyone has a natural right to be free if they can maintain it. All our freedom depends on the ability to defend ourselves. You're not going to pass a law that ends all danger. The progressives will surely pass a law to take freedom if you help them. I see this as more a problem of laws making self defense more a guilty until proven innocent than the other way around it should be.

SSRI drug use is serious business. The percentage of these shooters on SSRI is shocking. To my mind, we should start with monitoring SSRI usage.

I think the Florida case is a really bad example to use and really clouds the discussion because there were SOOOOO many red flags that were missed or dismissed by the FBI, BSO, School and even by his family.

That said, I think the mental fitness issue is very subjective and a slippery slope for future abuse in taking someone rights away with little or no ability for redress.

To me, if someone is involuntarily committed to an institution that that is a no brainer but they must have also have a method to petition restoration of rights after treatment.

For medications. There are many antidepressants used in lower dosages to treat ailements other than mental conditions.

Isn't the only issue with this;

What if the Dr that is appointed to do the health check is anti-gun he could easily use his position to stop good people from owning guns.

What merits a judge to be able to decide if a Dr's conclusion is correct in keeping someone from exercising their 2a rights?

And none of this answers the questions on what happens to people who do need help and choose not to seek it due to being afraid of losing their 2a rights

Then you may have someone who does need to be treated not being treated and could already be in possession of a firearm.

Well articulated.

Tough situation because people are effected differently. There are big differences in the amount prescribed to people.
I agree the people with high doses might need to be checked out by a doc. But what about all of those “barley licking” the pill. Millions of people taking small kid doses everyday who would laugh if you said you were about to take their 2nd Amendment rights because of it. They aren’t considered a danger to themselves or anyone else, but maybe their doc prescribed it to help getting to sleep. Where do you draw the line. Don’t know that you can. I mean...would set the limit?
If you told people the rules were changing, and if you take “whatever pill” you are on the bad list, I think you would see a lot of people stop taking the pills to keep their guns. Then there would be a lot of angry gun owners who’s levels are all off. Not good either.

I also agree and think there is a link with these mass shooters and all the prescription drugs. I’d also bet 85% of all roadrage incidents are tied to someone missing their pills for a day or two. HIPPA regulations will make it tough. I don’t have the answers, but do think it’s good people are talking about it.

The warnings seem to be pointing in that direction, I'm just concerned with who it pulls in. I'm afraid that Vet's being treated for PTSD will be flagged.

I have had several discussions about all this, and I don't know the right (or wrong) answer. But I do know SOMETHINGS wrong that needs to be fixed. Where I find the major concern, is if I'm struggling with the "do this, then here's this new problem", I'm sure politicians will have even less understanding than we do.

That is the whole problem right there. You are struggling with reconsiling in your mind that the fix is up to the government.

WE are all the problem because WE have allowed the government to control so much of our lives that “We The People” are no longer in control.

I truly believe that this is at the problem.....

You make it illegal for people on these drugs to own a weapon and 50% or more of all combat veterans will not be allowed to own guns.

Maybe they shouldn’t until they can function without meds.
It’s not their fault but again this is a societal problem. We have been in a perpetual war for the last 16 years. Numbers of recruits are down which means more redeployments to combat zones for those already suffering.

the vast majority of Veterans on meds are functioning just fine because of the meds and don’t want to hurt anyone.

Staying on the meds is what concerns me and this is not just a Veteran issue.
If someone has to be on meds to function then what happens when they forget? Or they have a lapse in prescription? Or feel they don’t need the meds anymore?

As you said in your reply “the vast majority” what about the folks not in that majority. Only takes one match to start a forest fire.