Pennsylvania LEO can't possess guns off duty

[A-R]

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index. ... un_wh.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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.

[mojo84]

WOW! How messed up is that?

[jmra]

WOW! How messed up is that?

A lot.

[VoiceofReason]

This officers situation may be a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act or the rehabilitation act.

As a matter of fact the federal firearm law they are using may be in conflict with one or both laws.
I am not a lawyer but I have had considerable experience with both the Americans with Disabilities Act and the rehabilitation act.

One thing that I can see is "employers must keep all information concerning the medical condition or history of its applicants or employees, including information about psychiatric disability, confidential under the ADA."

This whole thing about a person being treated for depression for a couple of months, twenty years ago keeping him/her from owning a gun has me interested. Think I will do some more research on it.

[EEllis]

This officers situation may be a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act or the rehabilitation act.

As a matter of fact the federal firearm law they are using may be in conflict with one or both laws.
I am not a lawyer but I have had considerable experience with both the Americans with Disabilities Act and the rehabilitation act.

One thing that I can see is "employers must keep all information concerning the medical condition or history of its applicants or employees, including information about psychiatric disability, confidential under the ADA."

This whole thing about a person being treated for depression for a couple of months, twenty years ago keeping him/her from owning a gun has me interested. Think I will do some more research on it.

He was involuntarily committed which is a court record and open the the public and has nothing to do with his working for the State Police. He wasn't "treated 20 years ago" He attempted suicide and was involuntarily committed. Mind you if he can work then he should get all his rights back but lets keep the story accurate.

[JSThane]

This officers situation may be a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act or the rehabilitation act.

As a matter of fact the federal firearm law they are using may be in conflict with one or both laws.
I am not a lawyer but I have had considerable experience with both the Americans with Disabilities Act and the rehabilitation act.

One thing that I can see is "employers must keep all information concerning the medical condition or history of its applicants or employees, including information about psychiatric disability, confidential under the ADA."

This whole thing about a person being treated for depression for a couple of months, twenty years ago keeping him/her from owning a gun has me interested. Think I will do some more research on it.

This whole thing about "mental illness" preventing a person from owning a gun at ANY TIME has me infuriated. "Mentally ill" is, if you'll pardon a politically incorrect phrase, the politically correct "new black," or the politically correct "new Jew." It is a way for the government to justify taking rights away without cause, without due process, and without recourse.

I've gone off on this several times before, so I'll just summarize: Once you make "mentally ill" an excuse to remove rights, the definition of "mentally ill" will be expanded to include everyone, and no one will have rights.

Rights should -only- be affected through due and legal process, as a result of crimes committed and convicted. The state of one's head, emotions, or how many voices are carrying on a solo conversation has absolutely nothing to do with it.

[powerboatr]

yes but the other side of the coin is he has been treated for suicidal ideations, attempts or thoughts and NOW is a peace officer carrying a deadly weapon....
does it bother anyone he could slip into the pre existing state and do a suicide with standby collateral damages(other dead people), maybe a traffic stop sends him over the edge...

I know from y time as a suicide prevention officer in the Navy......the ones whom profess these thoughts....are never cured, they still pop up and you never ever know when they push you over the limit
I would be scared to death if this guy pulled me over.
sorry, treatment or not he should not be a LEO.

[JSThane]

yes but the other side of the coin is he has been treated for suicidal ideations, attempts or thoughts and NOW is a peace officer carrying a deadly weapon....
does it bother anyone he could slip into the pre existing state and do a suicide with standby collateral damages(other dead people), maybe a traffic stop sends him over the edge...

I know from y time as a suicide prevention officer in the Navy......the ones whom profess these thoughts....are never cured, they still pop up and you never ever know when they push you over the limit
I would be scared to death if this guy pulled me over.
sorry, treatment or not he should not be a LEO.

No, I'm -not- worried about someone who had suicidal ideations, attempts, or thoughts, mainly because everyone has, at one point or another. The difference is the vast majority of us reject these ideas and thoughts immediately, but those who are severely clinically or situationally depressed might give it consideration. A few attempt it. A -very- few attempt it seriously.

And I don't worry about what anyone -could- do, I worry about what they are -doing-. Any one of us who carries a firearm on a daily or semi-daily basis -could- get "pushed over the limit" and go on a murderous rampage at any time. None of us do, though. Justifying actions against another based on what they "might" do, instead of what they -are- doing or attempting, is justification for taking ALL our guns, ALL our rights, because of what we -could- do, what we -might- do, but what we never -will- do.

If he's too much of a danger to have a gun, he's too much of a danger to walk the streets, have a driver license, be able to buy a baseball bat, kitchen knife, frying pan, or even, to reference another thread, to buy or handle a ceramic squirrel. If he's safe enough to squirrel or play ball, then we're not really worried about him.

[rbwhatever1]

Preposterous. It appears the State is at odds with it's own Laws on this one.

On the one hand the State Legislate's that any Citizen who has ever been committed involuntarily for a mental health issue is denied the god given right to defend themselves because they cannot be trusted with a Firearm. And with the other hand the State issues them a Firearm.

I think it's time for a new State. One that's logical...

[MeMelYup]

According to that information, if the officer in question ever has to shoot anyone in the line of duty the city will have gross legal problems. They have armed an officer that is considered to unstable to own or carry a gun if he were not a police officer.

[lfinsr]

One of the comments to the story that was linked pointed to another story that is well worth reading. In short as we all know, mental health is the "foot in the door" to gun control. Well worth the read...

http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/ ... tally-ill/

The last paragraph..

Every individual should be able to be eccentric, different, and even self-destructive. As long as the behavior harms no one else, it is no business of authority. To screen people for potentially dangerous behavior is a form of pre-crime diligence that gives government an almost unlimited power over anyone it targets. It is a tool of social control, not safety.

Larry

[powerboatr]

yes but the other side of the coin is he has been treated for suicidal ideations, attempts or thoughts and NOW is a peace officer carrying a deadly weapon....
does it bother anyone he could slip into the pre existing state and do a suicide with standby collateral damages(other dead people), maybe a traffic stop sends him over the edge...

I know from y time as a suicide prevention officer in the Navy......the ones whom profess these thoughts....are never cured, they still pop up and you never ever know when they push you over the limit
I would be scared to death if this guy pulled me over.
sorry, treatment or not he should not be a LEO.

No, I'm -not- worried about someone who had suicidal ideations, attempts, or thoughts, mainly because everyone has, at one point or another. The difference is the vast majority of us reject these ideas and thoughts immediately, but those who are severely clinically or situationally depressed might give it consideration. A few attempt it. A -very- few attempt it seriously.

And I don't worry about what anyone -could- do, I worry about what they are -doing-. Any one of us who carries a firearm on a daily or semi-daily basis -could- get "pushed over the limit" and go on a murderous rampage at any time. None of us do, though. Justifying actions against another based on what they "might" do, instead of what they -are- doing or attempting, is justification for taking ALL our guns, ALL our rights, because of what we -could- do, what we -might- do, but what we never -will- do.

If he's too much of a danger to have a gun, he's too much of a danger to walk the streets, have a driver license, be able to buy a baseball bat, kitchen knife, frying pan, or even, to reference another thread, to buy or handle a ceramic squirrel. If he's safe enough to squirrel or play ball, then we're not really worried about him.

I respectfully dis agree with your take on what I stated.
lots of people have suicidal thoughts, its called the human condition and many more are now predisposed to these thoughts by the current level of "in your face about suicide"
most persons would not want to "off" them selves
many think about it, daily, hourly etc
fewer actually act on it, and do it far enough to get attention(pills, slice wrists the wrong way, alcohol, etc), not wanting to die, but simply in need of help or attention
those that complete the act are dead so they are no longer a factor
that leaves us with those that attempted it and had to get treatment for the act and mental discourse that led them to the point of action. now like alcoholics and drug dependency persons they go through an ongoing treatment to prevent back sliding to to the point that caused them to be addicted.
in the suicide attempting persons, they to need on going tune ups to ensure the situation does not cause them to act again.
most persons who attempt only are in need of some attention and have feelings of needing what we call a "hug, care bear"
now this officer by the nature of his job is already predisposed to alcoholism, abuse of those in their household and a host of other issues that come with the job, ptsd is also in this mix.
now we have an officer that attempted to off himself years earlier MORE THAN ONCE,(he was depressed) and looked like he was baker act'd. He should have not imo ever passed the psych part of the police training. if he did not disclose then I am sure he knew it would create an issue being selected as a policeman.
their job is top level stressful and each area is different, we have trooper patroling ALONE on lots of back highways....think about what goes through the mind of a trooper on a dark lonely highway when doing a traffic stop. i bet his/her pulse is elevated. now add in the past "i want to end it" incident and he/she is now further elevated, they may not kill person they stop, or do they, or do they after the stop blow their heads off.
Think of one more scenario, and it could happen to anyone that has never thought about "offing them self"
after the stop the officer plans to do a suicide by passer by and causes the stopped person to defend themselves from a nut job, now he is dead and the poor driver is off to old sparky because this nut, decided he didnt want to live anymore and ruined an innocent persons life


i hope that this PA leo's name is out there and folks ask about every stop or arrest he has made and if they are legal or could be some sort of game for him to see if he could get "dead"

he is imo a ticking bomb that could explode on the public.
and to add a lot of leo's are probably ticking as well, but this guy has one more stick in the fire to pop if it were
no where did I say he was mentally ill or should be restricted from owning a firearm, I only stated he should not be a policeman. at least if he is depressed again, he can do the job correctly instead of lashing out for attention.
i may sound insensitive, but it comes from many years of counseling and investigating these "half hearted attempts", nothing worse than having to call a mom and tell her her son or daughter is on ice or in intensive care because they got depressed, then we find out they had a history of such thoughts and acts

[VoiceofReason]

yes but the other side of the coin is he has been treated for suicidal ideations, attempts or thoughts and NOW is a peace officer carrying a deadly weapon....
does it bother anyone he could slip into the pre existing state and do a suicide with standby collateral damages(other dead people), maybe a traffic stop sends him over the edge...

I know from y time as a suicide prevention officer in the Navy......the ones whom profess these thoughts....are never cured, they still pop up and you never ever know when they push you over the limit
I would be scared to death if this guy pulled me over.
sorry, treatment or not he should not be a LEO.

I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist. I have only had a basic psychology class in college. I don’t know your training or qualifications but many mental health professionals understand that depression can be caused by events in a person’s life.

It is as much an imbalance in the chemistry of the brain as it is psychological and can be treated with medication and counseling on handling grief and other life crises. There are those people that experience it once or twice and there are those that deal with it their entire lives.

The following people have had clinical depression.

http://www.wcvb.com/health/-/9848730/14 ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Buzz Aldrin
Ludwig van Beethoven
Terry Bradshaw
Marlon Brando
Earl Campbell
Winston Churchill
Dick Clark
Calvin Coolidge
Diana, Princess of Wales
Charles Dickens
Patty Duke
Carrie Fisher, Princess Leia in Star Wars
Tipper Gore, after her son’s near fatal car accident in 1989
Ernest Hemingway
President Abraham Lincoln
Michelangelo
Isaac Newton
Marie Osmond
author J.K. Rowling after her first marriage broke down
Leo Tolstoy, author of “War and Peace
Vincent Van Gogh
Mike Wallace, 60 Minutes

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/3 ... les_Schulz" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Charles Schulz, “Peanuts”
Richard Dreyfuss
Mark Twain
Teddy Roosevelt

[VoiceofReason]

This officers situation may be a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act or the rehabilitation act.

As a matter of fact the federal firearm law they are using may be in conflict with one or both laws.
I am not a lawyer but I have had considerable experience with both the Americans with Disabilities Act and the rehabilitation act.

One thing that I can see is "employers must keep all information concerning the medical condition or history of its applicants or employees, including information about psychiatric disability, confidential under the ADA."

This whole thing about a person being treated for depression for a couple of months, twenty years ago keeping him/her from owning a gun has me interested. Think I will do some more research on it.

He was involuntarily committed which is a court record and open the the public and has nothing to do with his working for the State Police. He wasn't "treated 20 years ago" He attempted suicide and was involuntarily committed. Mind you if he can work then he should get all his rights back but lets keep the story accurate.

If you will re-read my last sentence please note I said a person

“This whole thing about a person being treated for depression for a couple of months, twenty years ago keeping him/her from owning a gun has me interested. Think I will do some more research on it.”

I did not say “He”. In this sentence I was speaking in generalities to include anyone (past, present and future) that may unfairly be denied the right to own a firearm for this reason. I could have worded it differently to make it easier to understand.

[VoiceofReason]

Just random thoughts.

“That prohibition does not amount to a breach of Keyes' rights under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, Ford Elliott found, because it applies only to an "extremely small" class of citizens and has a solid public safety basis.”

So President Judge Emeritus Kate Ford Elliott believes the state can deny the Second Amendment rights of the U.S. Constitution if it “applies only to an "extremely small" class of citizens and has a solid public safety basis.”

I wonder if this precedent could be used to keep former service men/women with PTSD from owning guns.

More information https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 2I&cad=rja" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;