Jump to content

Gun Laws Prevent Officers From Seeking Help


mauserme

Recommended Posts

https://www.wbez.org/shows/wbez-news/chicagos-top-cop-says-gun-laws-prevent-officers-from-seeking-help-for-mental-illness/9312f693-858e-4a4a-9aa2-2906017b5e37

 

 

 

WBEZ News

 

Chicago’s Top Cop Says Gun Laws Prevent Officers From Seeking Help For Mental Illness

Miles Bryan

August 25, 2017

 

In Chicago, police officers are required to purchase their service guns. That means they also must have an Illinois Firearm Owner’s Identification card, known as a FOID card.

 

Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson said on Friday that one of the requirements for a FOID card could also be preventing some officers from getting mental health treatment.

 

According to state law, residents who have received inpatient treatment for mental illness in the past five years are barred from getting a FOID card. And those cards can be revoked: medical professionals must report anyone who voluntarily checked into a psychiatric unit.

 

Johnson said those laws discourage police officers from seeking mental illness treatment.

 

“If we punish officers for seeking treatment ... what message are we sending?” Johnson asked during an unrelated press conference Friday. “We are telling them then that, if you ask for help, we are going to punish you by taking your job away.”

 

...

 

State Police Director Leo Schmitz and Johnson “have discussed that any changes to the FOID act would require legislative changes,” said Master Sgt. Jason Bradley, a state police spokesman.

 

 

Insert "Illinois gun owner" for "officer" and you'd have a bill we could support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is actually Chicago that created this issue. Technically, all Illinois police officers are exempt from the FOID Act. Whether right or wrong, it is there. As long as they are performing a police function, a FOID card is not needed. Then in steps the Legal Department from City of Chicago. About 15 years or so ago, they decided that even if an officer is on the clock, if he/she takes a personal (a break to grab lunch or maybe a quick stop at store to buy something), they are no longer performing a police function and therefore because they are armed, they are in violation of the FOID act. They then required all Chicago Police Officers to obtain FOID cards in order to be compliiant. This sudden surge caused all kinds of headaches down at the ILL State Police FOID section. The reality is that whether on duty or off duty, CPD are required to take police action if observing a crime. That means that they are always watching and supposed to be observant which means they are really on duty all the time. But by requiring CPD to posses FOID cards, the legal department created this unfortunate situation. And surprisingly, Chicago has kept gun registration law in place. But the ONLY ones bound by it are Chicago Police officers and it doesnt matter if it is a duty related or non duty related firearm. All firearms owned by CPD officers are required to be registered...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be beneficial, though, to recognize that many gun owners in this state fear getting the treatment they need because of the almost certain loss of rights.

 

In the past few years the anti-gun crowd lumped suicides in their statistics to bolster their arguments. If they're serious about finding a solution to the now 60% to 70% of homicides involving a firearm actually being a suicide, then they need to acknowledge that people must have the freedom to seek the treatment they deserve. Everyone, not just sworn officers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Officers already received expedited status - above and beyond non-officers:

 

(c-5) (1) An active law enforcement officer employed by a unit of government, who is denied, revoked, or has his or her Firearm Owner's Identification Card seized under subsection (e) of Section 8 of this Act may apply to the Director of State Police requesting relief if the officer did not act in a manner threatening to the officer, another person, or the public as determined by the treating clinical psychologist or physician, and as a result of his or her work is referred by the employer for or voluntarily seeks mental health evaluation or treatment by a licensed clinical psychologist, psychiatrist, or qualified examiner, and:
(A) the officer has not received treatment
involuntarily at a mental health facility, regardless of the length of admission; or has not been voluntarily admitted to a mental health facility for more than 30 days and not for more than one incident within the past 5 years; and
(B] the officer has not left the mental institution
against medical advice.
(2) The Director of State Police shall grant expedited relief to active law enforcement officers described in paragraph (1) of this subsection (c-5) upon a determination by the Director that the officer's possession of a firearm does not present a threat to themselves, others, or public safety. The Director shall act on the request for relief within 30 business days of receipt of:
(A) a notarized statement from the officer in the
form prescribed by the Director detailing the circumstances that led to the hospitalization;
(B] all documentation regarding the admission,
evaluation, treatment and discharge from the treating licensed clinical psychologist or psychiatrist of the officer;
© a psychological fitness for duty evaluation of
the person completed after the time of discharge; and
(D) written confirmation in the form prescribed by
the Director from the treating licensed clinical psychologist or psychiatrist that the provisions set forth in paragraph (1) of this subsection (c-5) have been met, the person successfully completed treatment, and their professional opinion regarding the person's ability to possess firearms.
(3) Officers eligible for the expedited relief in paragraph (2) of this subsection (c-5) have the burden of proof on eligibility and must provide all information required. The Director may not consider granting expedited relief until the proof and information is received.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This law is also giving a backhanded slap at the psychological industry.

 

If someone is having mental issues and gets treatment, and are apparently OK, they are deemed not worthy of having the RKBA. So what they are saying is that psychology/psychiatry is such a pseudoscience, that it can't possible help anyone, and nobody can benefit from it, and getting treatment is proof that one has not been healed. In other words, psychology/psychiatry does not work.

 

I'm surprised the psychological industry doesn't object to the law. But nope. They are OK with being insulted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Officers already received expedited status - above and beyond non-officers:

 

 

(c-5) (1) An active law enforcement officer employed by a unit of government, who is denied, revoked, or has his or her Firearm Owner's Identification Card seized under subsection (e) of Section 8 of this Act may apply to the Director of State Police requesting relief if the officer did not act in a manner threatening to the officer, another person, or the public as determined by the treating clinical psychologist or physician, and as a result of his or her work is referred by the employer for or voluntarily seeks mental health evaluation or treatment by a licensed clinical psychologist, psychiatrist, or qualified examiner, and:

(A) the officer has not received treatment

involuntarily at a mental health facility, regardless of the length of admission; or has not been voluntarily admitted to a mental health facility for more than 30 days and not for more than one incident within the past 5 years; and
(B] the officer has not left the mental institution
against medical advice.
(2) The Director of State Police shall grant expedited relief to active law enforcement officers described in paragraph (1) of this subsection (c-5) upon a determination by the Director that the officer's possession of a firearm does not present a threat to themselves, others, or public safety. The Director shall act on the request for relief within 30 business days of receipt of:

(A) a notarized statement from the officer in the

form prescribed by the Director detailing the circumstances that led to the hospitalization;
(B] all documentation regarding the admission,
evaluation, treatment and discharge from the treating licensed clinical psychologist or psychiatrist of the officer;
© a psychological fitness for duty evaluation of
the person completed after the time of discharge; and
(D) written confirmation in the form prescribed by
the Director from the treating licensed clinical psychologist or psychiatrist that the provisions set forth in paragraph (1) of this subsection (c-5) have been met, the person successfully completed treatment, and their professional opinion regarding the person's ability to possess firearms.
(3) Officers eligible for the expedited relief in paragraph (2) of this subsection (c-5) have the burden of proof on eligibility and must provide all information required. The Director may not consider granting expedited relief until the proof and information is received.

 

 

 

and shall we not forget---------SUBJECT ONLY TO THE POLICE POWER-----

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be beneficial, though, to recognize that many gun owners in this state fear getting the treatment they need because of the almost certain loss of rights.

 

In the past few years the anti-gun crowd lumped suicides in their statistics to bolster their arguments. If they're serious about finding a solution to the now 60% to 70% of homicides involving a firearm actually being a suicide, then they need to acknowledge that people must have the freedom to seek the treatment they deserve. Everyone, not just sworn officers.

+1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This law is also giving a backhanded slap at the psychological industry.

 

If someone is having mental issues and gets treatment, and are apparently OK, they are deemed not worthy of having the RKBA. So what they are saying is that psychology/psychiatry is such a pseudoscience, that it can't possible help anyone, and nobody can benefit from it, and getting treatment is proof that one has not been healed. In other words, psychology/psychiatry does not work.

 

I'm surprised the psychological industry doesn't object to the law. But nope. They are OK with being insulted.

It's worse than that. The simple act of receiving treatment from the psychological industry is worse than non-treatment, in fact it's so bad it's a 100% automatic disqualifier..
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two things:

 

One, I suspect that we'll eventually see a case before the SCOTUS addressing the twin issues of gun registration and gun licensing, and I wouldn't be surprised if they rule these unconstitutional. I could easily see a NYC resident being the potential plaintiff in a case like this, and if they win, goodbye FOID.

 

Two, has anyone gotten a definitive clarification as to whether or not regular therapy counts as a "voluntary admission"? If that's all these officers want, I don't see why they'd get reported for an admission because it isn't one. Unless the chief is referring to people voluntarily checking themselves into inpatient rehab instead of outpatient rehab.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Therapy sessions are out-patient treatment, not an admission.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

That's what I figured, so the chief must be referring to inpatient treatment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The wife and I ended out going to see a counselor a couple of years ago for grief counseling. I was terrified at that point that the counselor we ended out seeing was going to (mis)diagnose me with depression and end out getting my FOID and CCL yanked.

 

Fortunately, that didn't happen, but I was nervous for six months or so.

 

Bri

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW: Physicians have a similar requirement that has a similar effect. They have to disclose if they are on anti-depressants or any other similar medications to licensing / credentialing boards, etc. The net result is that they don't get help they need or turn to something that doesn't get disclosed (i.e. alcohol or something else). All these type of laws sound good but have a bad effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know of veterans dealing with PTSD who have avoided seeking counseling for fear of losing their RKBA.

 

1- Emotionally disturbed "loner" with violent tendencies acts out with a firearm.

 

2- Leftists (who just coincidentally want to ban all guns "by any means necessary") cite "nutcase gun owners" in their anti-gun screeds.

 

3- Do-gooders and those ignorant about, apathetic to or anti-guns agree.

 

4- Politicians see "support" (or are part of #2 above) and make the laws "betterer" and "strongerer" to further limit or remove RKBA by those with mental issues who have not been adjudicated mentally defective.

 

5- Someone who owns a gun develops mental issues (often in service to our country), but avoids seeking counseling when the issue is more easily dealt with due to the stigma, and doesn't discuss it for fear of being reported.

 

6- Emotional and psychological issues get worse due to isolation.

 

7- go to step 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...