Jump to content
ogfarmer

Kean unveils N.J. gun control and mental health compromise bill

Recommended Posts

http://www.moremonmouthmusings.net/2015/10/16/kean-unveils-n-j-gun-control-and-mental-health-compromise-bill/

 

 

TRENTON -- Senate Minority Leader Tom Kean Jr. unveiled a new bill Friday that aims to ends a tug-of-war between Gov. Chris Christie and Senate President Stephen Sweeney over gun control and mental health legislation. 

Kean (R-Union) described the draft legislation as a more comprehensive bill that combines the original requirement that police be alerted when someone seeking a gun permit asks for their psychiatric commitment record be expunged with the governor's request for more sweeping mental health reforms.

"The first bill was incomplete," Kean said Friday, adding that his new bill affects "every single individual" who would have been included in the original bill "but also others who have the exact same mental health civil commitment histories."

Christie announced Friday he will sign the bill, saying in a statement "What our state needs, and what I support, is a comprehensive solution that gets individuals with mental illness the treatment they need, while also helping professionals, courts and families to intervene when the warning signs of mental illness signal someone poses an imminent danger to themselves or others."

 

In March, the Senate unanimously passed a measure ( S2360) requiring police be alerted when people seeking gun permits in New Jersey ask a judge to expunge their commitment to a psychiatric hospital from their record. Judges and law enforcement officials had requested the measure so judges can make more informed choices about people who claim they're recovered and want to own a gun.

MORE:  Sweeney vows to send N.J. State Police to find senators absent for gun override

Christie vetoed the bill, proposing instead a new standard for involuntary commitment of patients who are not necessarily deemed dangerous but "whose mental illness could, if untreated, deteriorate to the point of dangerousness."

The governor said he couldn't support a "patchwork" approach."

Democratic leaders failed to override Christie's veto on Sept. 24, with only two of the Republican Senators who voted for the original bill maintaining their support for it. Republicans said they rejected the override attempts because an alternative bill was in the works.

Sweeney (D-Gloucester), who criticized Republicans for reversing themselves said they "should be ashamed of their actions," has vowed to put the override before lawmakers until it passes. Earlier this week he threatened to send out the State Police to retrieve lawmakers who refuse to come to the Statehouse and cast a vote for the Oct. 22 voting session.

Senate Democrats' spokesman Richard McGrath said that if Kean's bill "includes the same provisions from the original bill, there is no good reason for Mr. Kean and the other Republicans not to vote for the override.

"The Senate president has said he won't consider any of these proposals designed to divert attention from the real issue of public safety until the Republicans do the right thing and support the override."

Kean said the new bill strengthens the original measure by expanding the reasons why a person has to notify the police when they apply for expungement, and incorporating Christie's proposals.

He has said the bill would require that people with a history of psychiatric commitment who apply for expungement of their record would also have to alert police for other reasons, such as applying for a job in a school, child care center, law enforcement or the security field.

"You want to have equal treatment before the law," Kean said. "If an individual has the exact same background in this one specific area of civil commitment, the expungement should be treated equally."

The legislation includes changes the governor sought that require involuntary treatment for people who have demonstrated violent behavior or a failure to comply with treatment. 

Christie's proposal would make it easier for a judge to order someone into the state's involuntary commitment program, which assigns patients intensive case management to make sure they have a place to live, are working or looking for work, and go to therapy. The standard now says patients who refuse outpatient treatment and deemed by their treatment team to be a danger to themselves, others or property "in the foreseeable future," may be committed by a judge to a psychiatric hospital until they are stable.

Robert Davison, executive director of the Mental Health Association of Essex County, said the proposed bill better defines New Jersey's commitment standard. 

 

"The recommended changes are sound guidance for the courts and mental health system. It clears up some confusion, which seems to manifesting itself statewide. The bill also makes (involuntary outpatient commitment) a separate standard, which makes it easier to convert from (involuntary outpatient commitment) to inpatient and vice versa... The changes contemplated in this bill are a step in the right direction and a positive development for individuals with severe mental illness and their families."

 Phillip Lubitz, associate director for the National Alliance on Mental Illness of New Jersey, said he had two issues with the proposed bill. The existing law requires a person's involuntary psychiatric commitment to be reported to a national law enforcement database. Kean's bill appears to include people who voluntarily check themselves into a psychiatric hospital, he said. Some people do this because they are depressed, suffering from an eating disorder or need to have their psychiatric medication adjusted.

"This may prevent people from seeking treatment," Lubitz said. "This could cost a police officer who needs treatment his gun and his job."

Lubitz said he is also troubled that the legislation reinforces the stigma that all people with mental illness are violent.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Christie vetoed the bill, proposing instead a new standard for involuntary commitment of patients who are not necessarily deemed dangerous but "whose mental illness could, if untreated, deteriorate to the point of dangerousness."

 

Better not look at a cop or a doc the wrong way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a serious question about what this means?

 

The original bill would require that law enforcement be notified when someone seeking a gun permit wants certain mental illness records expunged.

 

 

What is the time-frame dependencies here? It is written all in the present tense but i believe there is some dependency. like what is someone did an expungement a year ago, then today asks for an FPID? this sentence doesn't actually make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^ my interpretation is, original one proposed the notification req for gun permits, the latest ones applies that logic regardless of the reason for request. 

 

Bottomline, we got too many NJ politicians who got nothing else to do and have senate majority leader who would send State Police to "bring" absentee politicians.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think his question is with the wording and timing. It says the PD must be notified if someone is seekinga permit and an expungement. Which implies they're both being sought at the same time. If true, how does one side know about the other? Also is there a past-tense portion? Do I have to notify anyone of a past expungement when seeking a permit now? How far back?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think his question is with the wording and timing. It says the PD must be notified if someone is seekinga permit and an expungement. Which implies they're both being sought at the same time. If true, how does one side know about the other? Also is there a past-tense portion? Do I have to notify anyone of a past expungement when seeking a permit now? How far back?

 

 

The current SP-066 form now has a check box that indicates that mental records were "expunged."  So that's one way they can know of a previous expungement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current SP-066 form now has a check box that indicates that mental records were "expunged." So that's one way they can know of a previous expungement.

I'm not sure I understand the point then..

 

So this new bill (both versions, but especially the original) only had to do with parallel requests?

 

It seems the only useful scenario is If I apply for a permit and while that is processing, also apply for an expungement.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I understand the point then..

 

So this new bill (both versions, but especially the original) only had to do with parallel requests?

 

It seems the only useful scenario is If I apply for a permit and while that is processing, also apply for an expungement.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

you guys are asking the same questions I am struggling with. i don't understand the dependencies or loop hole this closes.

 

Without that I can't figure this is a good idea, overreach and/or unhelpful to the problem of mental health and firearms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you guys are asking the same questions I am struggling with. i don't understand the dependencies or loop hole this closes.

 

Without that I can't figure this is a good idea, overreach and/or unhelpful to the problem of mental health and firearms.

The loop hole was that you needed to be a danger to yourself or others to be committed. Soon you can be committed because somebody thinks you might be a danger to yourself or others some day, or maybe not, either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One day in the future we all will be considered to be a danger to ourseves or others by the single fact of wanting to have a gun.

Being danger to ourseves or others has been a tool used by dictators to get rid of the undesirable. Be concerned.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One day in the future we all will be considered to be a danger to ourseves or others by the single fact of wanting to have a gun.

Being danger to ourseves or others has been a tool used by dictators to get rid of the undesirable. Be concerned.

 

On the other hand, there are families today where the law has significantly hampered their ability and desire to get genuine help via qualified medical personnel that required a forced commitment and unfortunately this group of at risk people highly overlap with drug addicts and schizophrenics.

 

This is a sticky problem. Charles Krauthhammer wrote a column about the trade-off between liberty and coercion that has been hard pressed towards liberty with a consequence of more homelessness and drug problems that sometimes end up with tragic consequences beyond the individual.....  When statements like the above are made, we should step back and soberly consider the consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NJ.com has a decent article on the politics and the contents of the override attempt as well at Sen Kean's alternative proposal.

 

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/10/nj_mental_health_advocates_say_keans_bill_on_menta.html

 

As they explain it and I think it is pretty good summary is that the override basically addresses a corner case that has almost no appreciable impact.

 

The Kean proposal looks on the surface to address some concerns with access to mental health reform, but probably addresses side issues that don't really help with the serious downside of making voluntary commitment a record-able event. From my perspective that is a bad trade-off as it will surely scare many people away from getting help. Legal and due process based involuntary commitment is not addressed and is where the problem really lies today, with access to decent medical care being a separate problem.  

 

So the trade for safety vs. liberty in the Republican bill is a bad one, lose some liberty and get no real solution to the issue at hand.

 

The Sweeney bill is just as bad in that it solves a basically non-existent problem with additional administrative overhead with the potential for abuse.

 

Bad deal all around, sigh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our Senator, Kip Bateman ® was pivotal in voting to override. Probably because he was a sponsor.

 

Goes to the Assembly December 3rd where 54 votes are needed to override (6 R's to vote 'for') and that's not expected to happen.

Do we know how many republican seats are up in the Assembly this year? I read that the reason they're delaying the vote is because they think they'll get more seats in the election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...