State Trooper Can't Have Gun Off Duty Due to Mental Health Record, Court Rules
31 replies, posted
[URL]http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/12/state_trooper_cant_have_gun_wh.html[/URL]
[quote]Pennsylvania State Trooper Michael L. Keyes is in an odd situation.
When on duty, he can carry a gun.
Yet while off duty, he is barred by law from possessing any firearms, because seven years ago he suffered from deep depression, repeatedly tried to kill himself by taking drugs and was involuntarily committed for mental health treatment.
Keyes' latest attempt to be allowed to have a gun all the time was rejected this week by the state Superior Court.
That court upheld an earlier ruling by Perry County Senior Judge Keith B. Quigley that Keyes' involuntary mental health commitment constitutes an unsurmountable legal barrier to his ability to possess a gun while off duty.[/quote]
[quote]He was serving as a state trooper in Newport, when he was placed on temporary leave and ordered into mental health treatment in 2006. He finished treatment in less than a year and had to battle to get his job back, even after his doctor cleared him to go back to work.
An arbitrator's decision ordering his return to limited duty was fought by the state police, but ultimately was upheld by Commonwealth Court. The state Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of that ruling, and he was placed back on duty in 2010. [/quote]
[thumb]http://imgick.pennlive.com/home/penn-media/width620/img/midstate_impact/photo/8973988-mmmain.jpg[/thumb]
It's a bit silly, but I can't imagine that the inability to carry a gun when you're off-duty would destroy your personal life.
That's kind of a frightening precedent, whereas people who are diagnosed with a mental condition at one point in life are permanently barred from living a normal life, despite the fact that mental illnesses such as depression can come and go with the events in a person's life.
[QUOTE=Reds;43342234]It's a bit silly, but I can't imagine that the inability to carry a gun when you're off-duty would destroy your personal life.[/QUOTE]
Cops often carry while off duty due to what they deal with while on the job and because they feel threatened by people possibly singling them out because they are a cop (and I dont blame them for feeling scared)
[QUOTE=Groat;43342293]That's kind of a frightening precedent, whereas people who are diagnosed with a mental condition at one point in life are permanently barred from living a normal life, despite the fact that mental illnesses such as depression can come and go with the events in a person's life.[/QUOTE]
not to mention that it sets a precedent that makes most people want to NOT get treated for their mental health issues, which is exactly the opposite of what should be happening.
[QUOTE=Groat;43342293]That's kind of a frightening precedent, whereas people who are diagnosed with a mental condition at one point in life are permanently barred from living a normal life, despite the fact that mental illnesses such as depression can come and go with the events in a person's life.[/QUOTE]
Yes depression coming and going is kind of the exact problem here. Previous mental illness is highly correlated with future mental illnesses, so yeah it makes sense to take precautions
If you a history of trying to kill yourself then you're probably not best suited for owning a gun. Being driven to the point of near-suicide and being involuntarily committed to psychiatric facility indicates a much deeper problem that could resurge.
Sure he's better, but these type of people have a chronic mental disorder. I'm not saying it's untreatable, he's probably doing a good job at managing his symptoms too, but it indicates the possibility of a relapse once the circumstances allow it as prior.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;43342989]
I'd rather people with mental issues not own a firearm in the first place. This isn't going to set any sort of precedent, it makes perfect sense to not authorize him owning anything more dangerous than a cap gun.[/QUOTE]
the issue is that its assumed that nobody has a mental health issues, and then anybody that comes forward with one is given certain restrictions. When you do things like this, you remove any incentive to come forward with your mental health issue. which forces people to hide it, which is WORSE than having one but being treated for it. even if you refuse your treatment you are at least aware of your downfalls and such.
If you think your life will be worse after being diagnosed then what incentive do you have to even see a psychiatrist in the first place?
with your logic, you are basically allowing a bunch of people with mental health issues to refuse getting treated and walk around doing things "normal" people do while still having mental health issues. it's terrible to be honest and totally counter intuitive.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;43343251]I think it'd be counter intuitive to not impose certain restrictions. Would you prefer a person with schizophrenia, or bi-polar disorder to walk around with an AK-74? Because I wouldn't, and not many people would. I think we need to work more on removing the stigma of mental disorders first, before we sit there and think about removing restrictions, after all, a person may be absolutely fine whilst taking medications, but what happens if they run out? Or decide that they don't want them anymore?[/QUOTE]
yeah but then you're basically just allowing people with undiagnosed schizopherenia, bi-polar, BPD, etc. to walk around.
you can't remove the stimga without removing the restrictions, since most people don't want to to willingly restrict themselves.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;43343165]the issue is that its assumed that nobody has a mental health issues, and then anybody that comes forward with one is given certain restrictions. When you do things like this, you remove any incentive to come forward with your mental health issue. which forces people to hide it, which is WORSE than having one but being treated for it. even if you refuse your treatment you are at least aware of your downfalls and such.
If you think your life will be worse after being diagnosed then what incentive do you have to even see a psychiatrist in the first place?
with your logic, you are basically allowing a bunch of people with mental health issues to refuse getting treated and walk around doing things "normal" people do while still having mental health issues. it's terrible to be honest and totally counter intuitive.[/QUOTE]
Why is it a 'downfall'?
If you've demonstrated in the past that you've intentionally presented a real and likely threat to either yourself or others, you do not deserve a gun and it's not as much of a restriction as it is a safety measure. If you're so adamant on "keeping firearms" that it's restricting you from seeking mental help, then that's probably another mental issue that needs to be addressed.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;43343272]Why is it a 'downfall'?
If you've demonstrated in the past that you've intentionally presented a real and likely threat to either yourself or others, you do not deserve a gun and it's not as much of a restriction as it is a safety measure. If you're so adamant on "keeping firearms" that it's restricting you from seeking mental help, then that's probably another mental issue that needs to be addressed.[/QUOTE]
It's not that I'm disagreeing with you about mentally unable people and guns, it's that it's tough to get people to want to admit they have problems while they know they will face possibly severe real life consciences for coming clean.
also it's silly to give someone a gun while on duty but remove when he/she is off duty, i hope we can all agree on that.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;43343282]It's not that I'm disagreeing with you about mentally unable people and guns, it's that it's tough to get people to want to admit they have problems while they know they will face possibly severe real life consciences for coming clean.[/QUOTE]
What other "severe life consequence" do they get other than owning a gun?
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;43343284]Removing the restrictions would put more people in danger. While I don't agree with the whole sentiment of "guns are evil baby killing cop killers" I do agree that they are a tool that makes it EXTREMELY easy to do serious damage to people. I'd rather that ability to do SERIOUS damage to people be limited to those who are mentally sound.[/QUOTE]
right, i'm not disagreeing with that, but how do you propose people who are mentally unsound come forward? because right now they hide in the public pretending to be "mentally sound" while still suffering from whatever disorders they suffer from.
[editline]29th December 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Starpluck;43343292]What other "severe life consequence" do they get other than owning a gun?[/QUOTE]
social stigma, potential job prospects, off the top of my head. maybe insurance or things like that? i havent looked into that.
i've always been asked things like "have you ever had suicidal thoughts" on every pre-job interview type quiz i've ever taken.
The loophole is dumb as shit but I don't think the officer should keep his job if he's deemed unfit to possess a gun.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;43343296]social stigma, potential job prospects, off the top of my head. maybe insurance or things like that? i havent looked into that.
i've always been asked things like "have you ever had suicidal thoughts" on every pre-job interview type quiz i've ever taken.[/QUOTE]
Yeah I agree the current climate makes it difficult for people with mental health to be recognized but what other alternative do you prefer? I don't think mentally unstable people should be cops, especially since he was involuntarily committed. Yes it sucks that he's going to lose his job, but I'd prefer that over him having the badge on his side when he exhibits shitty behavior on duty.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;43343337]Yeah I agree the current climate makes it difficult for people with mental health to be recognized but what other alternative do you prefer? I don't think mentally unstable people should be cops, especially since he was involuntarily committed. Yes it sucks that he's going to lose his job, but I'd prefer that over him having the badge on his side when he exhibits shitty behavior on duty.[/QUOTE]
i totally agree, i just think it's difficult to get people to admit their faults, especially if they have mental health issues. which is the main problem here.
[editline]29th December 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;43343322]Well, the best possible way is to have doctors communicate more openly with the state. Certainly there are different levels of mental illness, not everyone is bad enough to warrent not owning a firearm. The best possible way to do it is to educate people on mental illness.
Also by the way, potential job prospects is a very, very limited thing. Only certain jobs (military, police, certain other critical jobs) are allowed to discriminate against those who have been deemed by the state to be mentally ill.[/QUOTE]
i dont know the statistics of hiring mangers and such, but most jobs would rather hire a "mentally stable" person over someone that wasn't for somewhat obvious reasons. i'm assuming this is why they ask you about your mental health history during the interviewing process.
i can't say definitively, but that's just what i've experienced.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;43343646]Yes, but if you ever feel that you didn't get a job due to your mental status, you may file a suit against them. It's a pretty well written law with very few loopholes (surprisingly)[/QUOTE]
the issue is that it's hard to prove, and you as a single person against a (possibly large) company will probably lose any lawsuit you file unless you have solid evidence that you were wronged.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;43343337]Yeah I agree the current climate makes it difficult for people with mental health to be recognized but what other alternative do you prefer? I don't think mentally unstable people should be cops, especially since he was involuntarily committed. Yes it sucks that he's going to lose his job, but I'd prefer that over him having the badge on his side when he exhibits shitty behavior on duty.[/QUOTE]
Not all mental health disorders are permanent, people change in 7 years you know.
[QUOTE=Groat;43342293]That's kind of a frightening precedent, whereas people who are diagnosed with a mental condition at one point in life are permanently barred from living a normal life, despite the fact that mental illnesses such as depression can come and go with the events in a person's life.[/QUOTE]
Not allowed to have guns really isn't "permanently barred from living a normal life" I think you can live a good and enjoyable life without recreational shooting.
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;43344704]Not allowed to have guns really isn't "permanently barred from living a normal life" I think you can live a good and enjoyable life without recreational shooting.[/QUOTE]
You know full well that he wasn't just referring to guns.
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;43344704]Not allowed to have guns really isn't "permanently barred from living a normal life" I think you can live a good and enjoyable life without recreational shooting.[/QUOTE]
Nonononono he NEEDS a gun. How else can he show his FREEDOM?
Seeing as I am personally restricted from owning a gun in the state of Virginia for this very reason, I can't help but say you all are disgusting when it comes down to judging mentally ill people.
Basically you're saying that I shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm because you're judging me based on a diagnosis that any quack could have given so that they earn money? I'm not sure if you're all informed or not, but the fact of the matter is that a lot of people get involved in the mental health system who don't have problems simply because doctors can make a quick buck diagnosing someone with a bullshit illness like ADHD.
Furthermore, why should I even seek treatment for my disorder if I have the chance to lose [U]jobs [/U]and opportunities because some prick thinks that I'm incompetent due to a brain imbalance. While you might think you're taking away our potential to hurt ourselves or others, the fact of the matter is this logic can also take away my rights, which is equally as wrong. I can't get a number of jobs in the security industry due to this, one of the most high paying industries out there. I can't go back in the military because of it. Health insurance goes up. I had to fill out a special form to get my driver's license that I'm taking medication for it. Every time I fill out a form that asks if I have mental issues, I have to judge if I should lie or not. The list goes on.
I'm not sure you all understand how much harm you're doing to people's lives who are affected by possessing that attitude.
What exactly is your diagnoses? You unscrupulously use ADHD as an example to imply as if ADHD is why you're "losing out on life" but I doubt that.
[QUOTE=Xystus234;43351660]Seeing as I am personally restricted from owning a gun in the state of Virginia for this very reason, I can't help but say you all are disgusting when it comes down to judging mentally ill people.
Basically you're saying that I shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm because you're judging me based on a diagnosis that any quack could have given so that they earn money? I'm not sure if you're all informed or not, but the fact of the matter is that a lot of people get involved in the mental health system who don't have problems simply because doctors can make a quick buck diagnosing someone with a bullshit illness like ADHD.
Furthermore, why should I even seek treatment for my disorder if I have the chance to lose [U]jobs [/U]and opportunities because some prick thinks that I'm incompetent due to a brain imbalance. While you might think you're taking away our potential to hurt ourselves or others, the fact of the matter is this logic can also take away my rights, which is equally as wrong. I can't get a number of jobs in the security industry due to this, one of the most high paying industries out there. I can't go back in the military because of it. Health insurance goes up. I had to fill out a special form to get my driver's license that I'm taking medication for it. Every time I fill out a form that asks if I have mental issues, I have to judge if I should lie or not. The list goes on.
I'm not sure you all understand how much harm you're doing to people's lives who are affected by possessing that attitude.[/QUOTE]
Some illnesses require certain levels of scrutiny though; especially those that get you medically discharged or administratively separated from active duty service. I'm sure you have a chip on your shoulder about it, but I can assure you that a large majority of professionals don't throw diagnoses out for money.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;43342386]not to mention that it sets a precedent that makes most people want to NOT get treated for their mental health issues, which is exactly the opposite of what should be happening.[/QUOTE]
The US is a bit weird in that respect, actually. He's barred from owning a gun because he was [i]forcibly[/i] committed to an institution, if he was [i]voluntarily[/i] committed then it'd be all sunshine and rainbows for him to own whatever guns he pleases. I know someone who was suicidal after a long term girlfriend broke up with him, and he sent himself to an institution, and he's bought several guns both before going in and since getting out.
[QUOTE=Keegs;43341999][URL]http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/12/state_trooper_cant_have_gun_wh.html[/URL]
[thumb]http://imgick.pennlive.com/home/penn-media/width620/img/midstate_impact/photo/8973988-mmmain.jpg[/thumb][/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers_Safety_Act[/url]
Federal law grants active duty (and some retired officers) that are allowed to carry a firearm as part of their duties to also carry a firearm concealed (without a permit) when off duty.
Federal law, by its very nature (see the supremacy clause of the constitution and basically every supreme court case surrounding the supremacy clause) preempts state law. The LEOSA even EXPLICITLY states that state law is preempted in this case and that all officers are permitted to carry concealed regardless of state law.
This court case is operating at a state level, but the state lacks the authority to actually hear this case because it can't preempt federal law. Why this was ever even fought at a state level is beyond me, you can appeal directly to the Federal circuit.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.