A3754: Seizure of firearms

[Nikos 31]

Bill: A3754

Requires firearms seizure when mental health professional determines patient poses threat of harm to self or others.

 

Cryan, Joseph as Primary Sponsor

O'Donnell, Jason as Primary Sponsor

Quijano, Annette as Primary Sponsor

Mainor, Charles as Primary Sponsor

McKeon, John F. as Primary Sponsor

 

A practitioner who is licensed in the State of New Jersey to practice psychology, psychiatry, medicine, nursing, clinical social work or marriage counseling who, in complying with subsection c. of this section, discloses a privileged communication, is immune from civil liability in regard to that disclosure.

[SW9racer 262]

Trust no one

[BOOMSTICK 6]

Bill: A3754

Requires firearms seizure when mental health professional determines patient poses threat of harm to self or others.

 

Cryan, Joseph as Primary Sponsor

O'Donnell, Jason as Primary Sponsor

Quijano, Annette as Primary Sponsor

Mainor, Charles as Primary Sponsor

McKeon, John F. as Primary Sponsor

 

A practitioner who is licensed in the State of New Jersey to practice psychology, psychiatry, medicine, nursing, clinical social work or marriage counseling who, in complying with subsection c. of this section, discloses a privileged communication, is immune from civil liability in regard to that disclosure.

 

Remind me never to piss off any mental health professionals.

[Wikkie2204 0]

At least for psychologists, they have always reported when there was an issue and aren't subject to penalty as a result of the APA Ethics code. This is simply an overreach of authority and exploitation of that code.

 

4.05 Disclosure

(a) Psychologists may disclose confidential information with the appropriate consent of the organizational client, the individual client/patient or another legally authorized person on behalf of the client/patient unless prohibited by law.

b) Psychologists disclose confidential information without the consent of the individual only as mandated by law, or where permitted by law for a valid purpose such as to (1) provide needed professional services; (2) obtain appropriate professional consultations; (3) protect the client/patient, psychologist, or others from harm; or (4) obtain payment for services from a client/patient, in which instance disclosure is limited to the minimum that is necessary to achieve the purpose. (See also Standard 6.04e, Fees and Financial Arrangements.)

[M4BGRINGO 139]

Seizure of whose firearms? Those that belong to the individual in question, or those that may be available to that individual?

[Black Ops 1]

Got this response from assemblywoman:

 

Angelini, Asw. D.O. <[email protected]>

4:22 PM (2 hours ago)

Thank you for contacting me with your opposition to the establishment of more restrictive gun ownership laws. Please know I strongly support the preservation and protection of our right to bear arms, which is guaranteed in our Constitution. Further, I share your views that much of the gun legislation being considered unfairly targets law-abiding gun owners and does little to curb gun violence.

 

Please know I will take your views into consideration should I be given the opportunity to vote on legislation related to this issue, and I would not support measures that infringe on our Second Amendment rights.

 

Thank you again for your correspondence and please feel free to contact me if I can ever be of assistance in this or any other matter.

 

Sincerely,

Mary Pat Angelini

Assemblywoman, 11^th District

[RUTGERS95 890]

at this rate, I may run for state assembly to add some commonfkingsense to the state

[pjd832 146]

at this rate, I may run for state assembly to add some commonfkingsense to the state

youll have my vote! lol

[MPA 0]

Hey, maybe you guys will freak out on me, but if a mental health professional determines a person is a threat to themselves or others, and in NJ that bar is very very high, dont you want them to take the gun away.

[fumanchu182 23]

Hey, maybe you guys will freak out on me, but if a mental health professional determines a person is a threat to themselves or others, and in NJ that bar is very very high, dont you want them to take the gun away.

 

 

A licensed practitioner of psychology, psychiatry, medicine,

nursing, clinical social work or marriage counseling shall discharge

the duty to warn and protect as set forth in subsection b. of this

section by doing any one or more of the following:

 

should be changed to:

 

A licensed practitioner of psychology, psychiatry, medicine,

nursing, clinical social work or marriage counseling shall discharge

the duty to warn and protect as set forth in subsection b. of this

section by doing any one or more of the following:

[fapipa 3]

Hey, maybe you guys will freak out on me, but if a mental health professional determines a person is a threat to themselves or others, and in NJ that bar is very very high, dont you want them to take the gun away.

 

Regardless of how high that bar is, this bill would revoke an individual's basic rights, based on another individual's subjective judgement, bypassing due process. A very bad idea, even if the "mental health professional" is licensed by the state. I suggest you re-read your history book and pay special attention to the chapters on 20th century Europe and China, for examples of where this leads.

[mikelets456 78]

 

 

Remind me never to piss off any mental health professionals.

 

I thought the main point of going to a health "professional" was to get help regarding your health! Once these people turn into " government informants" they are no longer health professionals. Hence, it's time to stop going and associating with them. There are enough good doctors that an underground type of system will result. However, here is the main pillar of communism.....divide and conquer. When no one can be trusted and money is the main arbitrator over morals , we're doomed.

 

This needs to stopped peacefully through the courts and contacting reps. If this does not work then other peaceful measures need to be considered to preserve freedom. Think outside of the box, be vigilant and never give up. Start locally and work outward going from house to house and show up at all council and school board meetings. You need to show up in numbers...always. The libs do it, so we need to twice as much.

[Nikos 31]

 

 

I thought the main point of going to a health "professional" was to get help regarding your health! Once these people turn into " government informants" they are no longer health professionals. Hence, it's time to stop going and associating with them. There are enough good doctors that an underground type of system will result. However, here is the main pillar of communism.....divide and conquer. When no one can be trusted and money is the main arbitrator over morals , we're doomed.

 

This needs to stopped peacefully through the courts and contacting reps. If this does not work then other peaceful measures need to be considered to preserve freedom. Think outside of the box, be vigilant and never give up. Start locally and work outward going from house to house and show up at all council and school board meetings. You need to show up in numbers...always. The libs do it, so we need to twice as much.

 

During the assembly meeting, I can't remember who it was that questioned the bills sponsor, Joseph Cryan, if he had conducted any research or consulted with any APA professionals. He (Cryan), responded that the APA disagreed with his proposed bill because they were concerned that it may deter people from seeking their help.

 

So, the mental health professionals do not agree with this insane bill but Cryan and his gang of un-American misfit legislators are continuing to push this bill regardless of the facts presented.

 

[plode 0]

Remind me never to piss off any mental health professionals.

 

It's not just mental health professionals you have to worry about with this bill. Nurses at your doctors office would be able to report you.

Suddenly we all stop going to the doctors because there might be a corrupt anti-gun nurse there who doesn't like your NRA t-shirt and puts a call in.

 

Go see your doctor for a fever, and when you get home SWAT is at your house searching for and confiscating your guns. And it's your word versus that nurses.

[DirtyDigz 1,811]

I think this standard should be set: if the person is dangerous enough to have their firearms seized then they are dangerous enough to be involuntarily committed. One must follow the other.

 

The implication in seizing of firearms is that there is immediate danger of the person harming himself or others. If that is the belief, then the same person can also do harm with a baseball bat, kitchen knife or gallon of gasoline. If they are that dangerous, they shouldn't be walking free.

[raz-0 1,259]

I think this standard should be set: if the person is dangerous enough to have their firearms seized then they are dangerous enough to be involuntarily committed. One must follow the other.

 

The implication in seizing of firearms is that there is immediate danger of the person harming himself or others. If that is the belief, then the same person can also do harm with a baseball bat, kitchen knife or gallon of gasoline. If they are that dangerous, they shouldn't be walking free.

 

And it used to be that way. Now there aren't places to commit them to. What few there are are commercial and are primarily interested in freeing up the bed for someone who will get them paid.

[Fred2 367]

It's not just mental health professionals you have to worry about with this bill. Nurses at your doctors office would be able to report you.

Suddenly we all stop going to the doctors because there might be a corrupt anti-gun nurse there who doesn't like your NRA t-shirt and puts a call in.

 

Go see your doctor for a fever, and when you get home SWAT is at your house searching for and confiscating your guns. And it's your word versus that nurses.

 

+1

 

Thre are no checks and balances in how this is written.

One "professional" with an anti gun agenda can deny the rights of everyone they come into contact with.

[71ragtopgoat 23]

With a near 50% divorce rate mental help is sought by a large number of people. I see this as a power too great to be had by a profession who's suicide rate is much greater then the general publics

[Pythagoras 2]

I think this standard should be set: if the person is dangerous enough to have their firearms seized then they are dangerous enough to be involuntarily committed. One must follow the other.

 

The implication in seizing of firearms is that there is immediate danger of the person harming himself or others. If that is the belief, then the same person can also do harm with a baseball bat, kitchen knife or gallon of gasoline. If they are that dangerous, they shouldn't be walking free.

 

This right here. If you're a danger to yourself or others, taking guns away isn't the answer. Psychological observation and treatment is.

[leahcim 679]

It is for this reason that I would never EVER voluntarilly seek any type of mental health counselling--even if I felt it was warranted--and I would never say anything to any health care provider if I felt depressed, moody, or any other subjective state of mind.

I sure hope that does not make me paranoid ;-)

[RedRiverII 0]

I once told my Dr. that I didn't want to live going into A-Fib 3 or 4 times a week. All he heard was the didn't want to live shit. No, no, no, just the A-Fib part, I wanna live, can we do the procedure, the ablatement. He said when we here phrases like that.... Dangerous ground folks.

 

I don't wanna live with these hemmorhoids, lockup.

I don't wanna live with this toothache, lockup.

I don't wanna live with these bunions, lockup.

[wooly bugger 1]

I think this standard should be set: if the person is dangerous enough to have their firearms seized then they are dangerous enough to be involuntarily committed. One must follow the other.

 

The implication in seizing of firearms is that there is immediate danger of the person harming himself or others. If that is the belief, then the same person can also do harm with a baseball bat, kitchen knife or gallon of gasoline. If they are that dangerous, they shouldn't be walking free.

Exactly. There's a lot of due process to the involuntary commitment process. Not anyone (marriage counselor???) can do it, and it requires a court order, which can be appealed. As someone else pointed out, there is a duty to report a patient who poses a threat to himself or others. The decision is made independent of the availability of an inpatient bed. If needed ,the patient will be kept in a general hospital bed until a psych bed opens up.

 

It's absolutely true that since the deinstitutionalization push in the 80s, it's very, very hard to find a bed in an inpatient unit. If our rulers truly cared about public safety, the single most effective thing would be to pass a bill funding more construction. But that would cost money. And wouldn't look as cool as holding an AR over one's head and screaming: "I'm protecting you from this!"

We've been betrayed, folks. But we all knew that.

[BleedingOrange36 0]

I wonder if this extends to school nurses and and guidance counselors?

 

[MPA 0]

They are legally bound to report anyone now that they feel is a danger to themselves or others. In New Jersey the bar is pretty high though, because the available programs even the non voluntary ones are always very very full. If they pull the trigger, you either go for voluntary 72 pchych eval, or you go for a non voluntary one. The first thing they do is check if you have firearms.

So what difference would this law really make. Its just another law that is almost the same as one we already have.

[voyager9 3,434]

Another article that shows that even the medical community is concerned about the overreaching implications of this bill..

 

Proposed Law Could Use Therapy as Way to Seize Guns from Troubled Owners

The measure would require them to report to the attorney general any patient who is “likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to that patient or others.” The attorney general’s office would then check to see if the patient has any gun permits and, if he or she does, instruct the police to seize the weapons.

 

Some mental health professionals said the bill could lead patients who own guns to lie to their therapists or to avoid seeking mental health care in the first place. In addition, the bill’s language is more open to interpretation than current state law that requires these practitioners to violate patient confidentiality.

 

Josephine Minardo, executive director of the New Jersey Psychological Association, said that adding another reason to break patient confidentiality could erode the trust between practitioners and patients.

[voyager9 3,434]

They are legally bound to report anyone now that they feel is a danger to themselves or others. In New Jersey the bar is pretty high though, because the available programs even the non voluntary ones are always very very full. If they pull the trigger, you either go for voluntary 72 pchych eval, or you go for a non voluntary one. The first thing they do is check if you have firearms. So what difference would this law really make. Its just another law that is almost the same as one we already have.

 

From the article above:

While the current standard of a specific threat of imminent, serious violence is specific enough for psychologists to take action, the bill’s requirement that a professional determine whether a patient is “likely to do serious harm” is too nebulous, she said.

In addition, it's not just psychologists in the new bill.. it would be opened up to people who are not trained to make this kind of assessment.. which leaves it arbitrary and subjective.

[mikelets456 78]

Hey, maybe you guys will freak out on me, but if a mental health professional determines a person is a threat to themselves or others, and in NJ that bar is very very high, dont you want them to take the gun away.

 

Trying not to freak out but this is the main reason we have these problems in this country. Making government the provider, decision maker and arbiter of rights is against what private property ownership and personal responsibility is all about. Once again the so called "good intentions" of the government is the most dangerous to liberty. This is why NJ is a full blown nanny state and you have come to believe it and buy into it. Just remember, when a health professional deems religion, libertarianism and freedom as a sickness they'll have the power to take what you have. Thomas Jefferson gets it right:" I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery". Please, we need to get back to personal responsibility and you can't have a controlling government nanny state and personal responsibility under the same roof. Which system do you want?

[SlipperyPete 0]

So perhaps this allows the diversion from the true problem that exists. The prescribing and use of psychiatric drugs, and the effects on rational, sound judgement. Guess no one wants to dig into that research. Might hurt the campaign funds of the gun grabbers if they go after the pharmaceuticals that contribute heavily to their campaigns. Heaven forbid we actually look at the real issues. Wonder how many of the mass killers are on psych meds?

 

So one question, lets say my neighboor is a psych, and doesn't like the fact that the resident across the street is licensed to own a firearm, and owns one. Under this proposed piece of legislation, can he contact the gov/pd/whoever would enforce this and have the neighboors guns taken away, even though he is not treating him medically?

[bzer1 15]

And it used to be that way. Now there aren't places to commit them to. What few there are are commercial and are primarily interested in freeing up the bed for someone who will get them paid.

 

The NJ assembly seems to be filled with nuts, we could put them there!!!!

[Glockguy1120 0]

This kind of bill is another reason why, aside from close friends, family, and people that I talk to here, I do not advertise that I am a gun owner. My kids pediatricians office handed us a form when we first started going, first question was are there firearms in the house. My wife just couldn't understand why I wrote no. This was 3.5 years ago btw.