12-04-2010, 08:56 AM
I'm coming in a little late in this thread as I generally avoid most (but not all) of the polemical issues like guns. However, Tom's situation struck me as being closely related to my own experiences as a mental health professional working with law enforcement in the area of "mental disorder." I certainly agree with Bob Orts about the lack of legislative professionalism in writing laws that compel law enforcement to diagnose mental disorder:
Hawai'i should not give law enforcement the power to make a determination of "mental disorder." If we are to have a mental disorder clause in Hawai'i gun laws, which I believe a very reasonable requirement, the legislature should provide a professional review, at state expense, to determine whether gun ownership should be legally denied.
In a very analogous situation, with a master's level education in clinical psychology, I was involved in the initial implementation of a 1974 Washington State law reforming involuntary civil ("mental") commitment. I would perform an initial mental status evaluation of a request (public or police) for a 72 hour involuntary commitment, sometimes under stressful circumstances. This was required for the police to legally place a person in involuntary custody for transport to a psychiatric facility. Then other professionals above my pay grade would make a substantial examination to see whether further involuntary confinement was necessitated.
In that experience, I discovered that law enforcement is usually uncomfortable determining mental status and generally wants out of that process. It would be nice to think that Hawai'i County law enforcement would urge the legislature to professionalize this process. My position was funded by the state and my services were free. It might be a hoop to go through, but based on Tom's description (and really not trying to do a Bill Frist long distance diagnosis here either) it would seem that a professional evaluation might not come to the same conclusion that the police did.
quote:
ETA: To ensure no one has the wrong impression of Tom's situation, under Hawaii and 40 other state laws, Mental Illness disqualification/ineligibility amount to saying Stink Eye or honking a horn is a Violent Homicidal Action. It does not mean a person is mentally ill. Mental illness encompasses a very broad range of public feelings that may have nothing to do with the person's mental state.
Hawai'i should not give law enforcement the power to make a determination of "mental disorder." If we are to have a mental disorder clause in Hawai'i gun laws, which I believe a very reasonable requirement, the legislature should provide a professional review, at state expense, to determine whether gun ownership should be legally denied.
In a very analogous situation, with a master's level education in clinical psychology, I was involved in the initial implementation of a 1974 Washington State law reforming involuntary civil ("mental") commitment. I would perform an initial mental status evaluation of a request (public or police) for a 72 hour involuntary commitment, sometimes under stressful circumstances. This was required for the police to legally place a person in involuntary custody for transport to a psychiatric facility. Then other professionals above my pay grade would make a substantial examination to see whether further involuntary confinement was necessitated.
In that experience, I discovered that law enforcement is usually uncomfortable determining mental status and generally wants out of that process. It would be nice to think that Hawai'i County law enforcement would urge the legislature to professionalize this process. My position was funded by the state and my services were free. It might be a hoop to go through, but based on Tom's description (and really not trying to do a Bill Frist long distance diagnosis here either) it would seem that a professional evaluation might not come to the same conclusion that the police did.