Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Atlanta Overwatch
Joined
·
13,861 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Quote from this site.

"To obtain a Georgia Firearms License you must first be a resident of Georgia or on active duty on a base in Georgia. You also cannot fail any of the reasons why a permit will be denied. Georgia Code 16-11-129

No License shall be granted to:

Any person who is prohibited from possessing firearms pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 922;

Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution"


In Jan '06 my wife spent 4 days being treated inpatient for depression. She was not adjudicated or forcibly committed, except by me. It ends up that it was due to a problem with an anti-depressant that she had been taking for several years. The Doctor said that in 1-2% of patients it quits working after a few years and will actually INCREASE depression.

Will this make her ineligible for a GFL? If so, is it permanent or temporary?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
"Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution"

Seems to me (IANAL) that as you stated you and your wife obtained this treatment - without being adjudicated or being "forced" it is a non-player.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Being depressed is not being metally defective. Depression can be for good reasons, or depression can be for long-term or organic reasons. I'd say that this would be properly defined by the doctors treating her. If she isn't long-term ill, or isn't ill from an organic brain disorder, then apply. The record will support or deny her chances of getting a CCL.

But my understanding is that she doesn't need a license to carry a gun in the car, in designated places, nor to carry one at home or her place of business, license or no license.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
More and more people want to prohibit people from obtaining a gun if they ever went voluntarily for treatment. I see that as a positive thing. They identified and sought treatment for a problem. Some have even stated the same concern over someone going in for substance abuse. What is next? Bar those who have ever taken a medication for depression or anxiety? Do we really want to tell someone that they are better off in the long run if they go it alone?

Depression can happen for all sorts of reasons, death of family member, brain chemistry, etc. It is also treatable.

I am not sure I even have a problem with someone being forced to go (assuming it was not for violence-related mental health issues).

It looks like VA is now going to keep a database of some sorts which puzzles me as I thought the guy went for treatment on a voluntary basis.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,798 Posts
I am just trying to clarify, you do or do not want to disallow people from getting their GFL if they voluntarily seek treatment in a mental health facility?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
Oops. I guess that was a bit unclear. I do not want it to used to prevent them from obtaining a firearm or license.

I can just see the abuse of such a database by potential employers, insurance, etc.
 

·
Atlanta Overwatch
Joined
·
13,861 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
I think that would depend on what they were there for. Someone who had/is having violent episodes is a different situation than someone who is depressed. Unless suicidal, I don't feel that a person who is treated for depression should be banned from owning or carrying a weapon. I do feel that a person who is subject to violent psychotic episodes, has multiple personality disorder, is schitzophrenic (spelling?), or dillusionary should be banned.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,798 Posts
GAGunOwner said:
But like criminals they will still obtain guns if they want to. More laws are not the answer.
I'm about as Laissez-faire with gun laws as you are probably gonna find, but a law to prevent those specific people is probably in everyone's best interest.
 

·
Atlanta Overwatch
Joined
·
13,861 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
I agree that there are too many people that are prohibited for stupid reasons, but a person with a violent past, or violent tendencies should be prohibited.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,703 Posts
Adam5 said:
I agree that there are too many people that are prohibited for stupid reasons, but a person with a violent past, or violent tendencies should be prohibited.
They should also be locked up if they pose harm. You can kill someone with a 2x4 just as much as you can with a firearm.
 

·
Atlanta Overwatch
Joined
·
13,861 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
jgullock said:
Adam5 said:
I agree that there are too many people that are prohibited for stupid reasons, but a person with a violent past, or violent tendencies should be prohibited.
They should also be locked up if they pose harm. You can kill someone with a 2x4 just as much as you can with a firearm.
That's for another thread. There are too many ex-felons that are out of prison and committing more crimes. People make mistakes, and I'm not saying the someone shouldn't have a second chance to thurn their lives around. But, should they get a 4th, 5th, 6th, etc chance? NO WAY !!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,215 Posts
Adam5 said:
I agree that there are too many people that are prohibited for stupid reasons, but a person with a violent past, or violent tendencies should be prohibited.
I hope you don't include folks who took part in government sponsored violence?! :shock:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
I do not think a judge (nonmedical person) is qualified to make the permanent decision on whether a person is a danger to himself or others to a degree that forever removes their rights especially if no crime has been committed.

I see the need for someone to make that call legally for treatment purposes and crime prevention. Still, a judge relies on subjective evidence to commit someone. They are not medical doctors.

Obviously the doctors did not think the VT guy was a serious risk after direct observation, or they would have went for an involuntary hold vs recommending counseling.

So what happens if a judge sides with the crying parents/spouse and the doctors say there is no danger to himself or others? Does that then come off their record? Is there any appeal to restore those rights? It seems a felon has a better chance of having his/her rights restored.
 

·
Atlanta Overwatch
Joined
·
13,861 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
USMC - Retired said:
Adam5 said:
I agree that there are too many people that are prohibited for stupid reasons, but a person with a violent past, or violent tendencies should be prohibited.
I hope you don't include folks who took part in government sponsored violence?! :shock:
No, not at all. I thank those people. It's because of what they did, are doing, and will do in the future , that I enjoy the freedoms that I have as an American. I am eternally thankful to all the members (past, present and future) of our armed forces, for the scarifices that they make.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,215 Posts
Adam5 said:
USMC - Retired said:
Adam5 said:
I agree that there are too many people that are prohibited for stupid reasons, but a person with a violent past, or violent tendencies should be prohibited.
I hope you don't include folks who took part in government sponsored violence?! :shock:
No, not at all. I thank those people. It's because of what they did, are doing, and will do in the future , that I enjoy the freedoms that I have as an American. I am eternally thankful to all the members (past, present and future) of our armed forces, for the scarifices that they make.
Geee thanks for taking all the fun outta my joke! :(

And thanks for the kind words.... :)
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top