JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Messages
2,499
Reactions
2,870
Hmmmmmm, yup that's "rational"......................:huh:

State trooper can't have gun while off duty due to mental health record, Pa. court rules


on December 26, 2013 at 12:34 PM, updated December 26, 2013 at 1:25 PM

Pennsylvania State Trooper Michael L. Keyes is in an odd situation.


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.

Keyes' latest attempt to be allowed to have a gun all the time was rejected this week by the state Superior Court.

That court upheld an earlier ruling by Perry County Senior Judge Keith B. Quigley that Keyes' involuntary mental health commitment constitutes an unsurmountable legal barrier to his ability to possess a gun while off duty.

An attempt to reach Keyes' attorney, Joshua Prince, for comment on the case wasn't successful Thursday. Keyes has been involved in legal battles ever since completing his mental health treatment. He also had to fight to be reinstated to the state police.

He was serving as a state trooper in Newport, when he was placed on temporary leave and ordered into mental health treatment in 2006. He finished treatment in less than a year and had to battle to get his job back, even after his doctor cleared him to go back to work.

An arbitrator's decision ordering his return to limited duty was fought by the state police, but ultimately was upheld by Commonwealth Court. The state Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of that ruling, and he was placed back on duty in 2010. In 2012, Commonwealth Court also ordered that Keyes be awarded nearly $16,000 in back pay.

Keyes began battling for full reinstatement of his ability to carry firearms in 2008. The problem, according to court filings, is that the federal Gun Control Act bars those who have been subject to involuntary mental health commitments from possessing guns.

In its ruling issued Tuesday, the Superior Court found there is no way for Keyes to have the record of his involuntary mental health commitment expunged. That means Keyes cannot surmount the federal ban on his having a gun off-duty, President Judge Emeritus Kate Ford Elliott wrote in the state court's opinion.

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.

"The dangers inherent in the possession of firearms by the mentally ill are manifest," the judge wrote. And while Keyes argued that he is no longer mentally ill, "a present clean bill of health is no guarantee that a relapse is not possible," Ford Eliiott noted.

"Given the extreme potential harm attendant to the possession of deadly weapons by the mentally ill, and the risk of relapse," the judge wrote, "we see an important government interest in controlling the availability of firearms for those who have ever been adjudged mentally defective or have ever been committed to a mental institution but are now deemed to be cured."

It is "rational" for Keyes to still be allowed to have a gun on-duty because then he is under the supervision and observation of superior officers and his fellow troopers, Ford Elliott concluded.

"Were [Keyes] to again fall into a depressive state with suicidal ideation, it would be much more likely to be discovered while he is on-duty and his superiors could then restrict his access to state police firearms," she wrote.

<broken link removed>
 
That one did it. Now I think I can say I have heard everything.
WTF is wrong with this nation. HAS everyone gone that far nuts ?
Does the court comprehend just how far below stupid they are.............
This whole scenario is so far beyond the twilight zone.......................
:huh::s0163::s0077::nuts::s0092::dynamite::s0095:
 
Ok, I would have chimmed in earlier but I knocked myself out beating my head against the desk. :s0054:.


That's like hiring a child molester to teach grade school, but can not come within 1000ft of kids when he is not working.

In all seriousness I am flabbergasted, to the point I think I am having a stroke cause I took 25 minutes to type this much.

Thank God there is still Jose Cuervo in the house. this is a three shot moment !

Good analogy too.
I know the feeling, that one is so far out there I am wondering if someone got saturday night live mixed up with the news........................
 
Ok, I would have chimmed in earlier but I knocked myself out beating my head against the desk. :s0054:.

That's like hiring a child molester to teach grade school, but can not come within 1000ft of kids when he is not working.

In all seriousness I am flabbergasted, to the point I think I am having a stroke cause I took 25 minutes to type this much.

Thank God there is still Jose Cuervo in the house. this is a three shot moment !

Can't do tokillya, but thank God this vodka and OJ is kicking in!! :angry:
 
Can anyone imagine this 10x with obammycare public health records. Don't anyone tell me they are protected by HIPPA as in obammycare that is BS Period. I have always said they will use obammycare to do gun control. This with the cop is just a trial ballon. Time to go to doctors out of country. Yet the left pretend 2A's will still vote back in there communist leaders. Is it 1776 again yet?
 
Double-facepalm.jpg
 
Can't do tokillya, but thank God this vodka and OJ is kicking in!! :angry:

Must have been a hell of a night you had on tokillya. :s0112:

I don't do rum...
Ended up taking on a whole fing bar at about age 25 on that crap.
I don't do rum.

ZTequila and Zshine, good :s0155:
 
Actually, I understand it.

On the one hand you have the State Police who do not want him as an officer, but were forced by the courts, etc., to take him back.

Then you have another different court who says, on a separate but related issue, that he cannot own guns. Theoretically he doesn't - he is issued one by the State Police for duty carry?

The court who is deciding he can't own firearms is just following the law as they see it, and they cannot say anything about the fact that he has a job as a State Police officer - they have no control over that - different court/process.

Yes it conflicts, sometimes courts do that - in fact, they do it often, sometimes on the exact same issue.

Now I don't know all of the exact details of this officer's mental health issues, but I do know people make mistakes in their life from time to time, and sometimes mental health issues can be turned around. I am not a mental health professional with the experience to determine, from an extended examination of this officer, whether he is safe on the job or whether he is safe to own a firearm - but some mental health issues are not a permanent thing any more than a broken bone means you are permanently disabled.

It is an interesting case though, and it is something to point to in order to show how sometimes our government regs and laws can result in some really screwed up situations.

I do think that maybe the Oregon legislature should say that if an Oregon LEO (municipal, state, county, etc.) permanently cannot legally own a firearm privately due to federal or state laws, then they should not be in a capacity where they can carry in a role of authority. But you can imagine the uproar amongst LEOs that would cause if anybody even suggested it, much less voted for it - despite the fact that to me it makes sense.
 
Just more proof of my assertion that this system would be powerless and utterly incompetent against the militia. These people couldn't thrash their way out of a wet paper bag
 
This is exactly the type of person obozo wants in his personal police force that is equipped as good or better than our military.
 
Actually, I understand it.

On the one hand you have the State Police who do not want him as an officer, but were forced by the courts, etc., to take him back.

Then you have another different court who says, on a separate but related issue, that he cannot own guns. Theoretically he doesn't - he is issued one by the State Police for duty carry?

The court who is deciding he can't own firearms is just following the law as they see it, and they cannot say anything about the fact that he has a job as a State Police officer - they have no control over that - different court/process.

Yes it conflicts, sometimes courts do that - in fact, they do it often, sometimes on the exact same issue.

Now I don't know all of the exact details of this officer's mental health issues, but I do know people make mistakes in their life from time to time, and sometimes mental health issues can be turned around. I am not a mental health professional with the experience to determine, from an extended examination of this officer, whether he is safe on the job or whether he is safe to own a firearm - but some mental health issues are not a permanent thing any more than a broken bone means you are permanently disabled.

It is an interesting case though, and it is something to point to in order to show how sometimes our government regs and laws can result in some really screwed up situations.

I do think that maybe the Oregon legislature should say that if an Oregon LEO (municipal, state, county, etc.) permanently cannot legally own a firearm privately due to federal or state laws, then they should not be in a capacity where they can carry in a role of authority. But you can imagine the uproar amongst LEOs that would cause if anybody even suggested it, much less voted for it - despite the fact that to me it makes sense.

Law says he can't "possess" guns not "own" guns

In its ruling issued Tuesday, the Superior Court found there is no way for Keyes to have the record of his involuntary mental health commitment expunged. That means Keyes cannot surmount the federal ban on his having a gun off-duty, President Judge Emeritus Kate Ford Elliott wrote in the state court's opinion.

but some mental health issues are not a permanent thing any more than a broken bone means you are permanently disabled

"Given the extreme potential harm attendant to the possession of deadly weapons by the mentally ill, and the risk of relapse," the judge wrote, "we see an important government interest in controlling the availability of firearms for those who "have ever" been adjudged mentally defective or "have ever" been committed to a mental institution but are now deemed to be cured."
 
Actually, I understand it.

On the one hand you have the State Police who do not want him as an officer, but were forced by the courts, etc., to take him back.

Then you have another different court who says, on a separate but related issue, that he cannot own guns. Theoretically he doesn't - he is issued one by the State Police for duty carry?

The court who is deciding he can't own firearms is just following the law as they see it, and they cannot say anything about the fact that he has a job as a State Police officer - they have no control over that - different court/process.

Yes it conflicts, sometimes courts do that - in fact, they do it often, sometimes on the exact same issue.

Now I don't know all of the exact details of this officer's mental health issues, but I do know people make mistakes in their life from time to time, and sometimes mental health issues can be turned around. I am not a mental health professional with the experience to determine, from an extended examination of this officer, whether he is safe on the job or whether he is safe to own a firearm - but some mental health issues are not a permanent thing any more than a broken bone means you are permanently disabled.

It is an interesting case though, and it is something to point to in order to show how sometimes our government regs and laws can result in some really screwed up situations.

I do think that maybe the Oregon legislature should say that if an Oregon LEO (municipal, state, county, etc.) permanently cannot legally own a firearm privately due to federal or state laws, then they should not be in a capacity where they can carry in a role of authority. But you can imagine the uproar amongst LEOs that would cause if anybody even suggested it, much less voted for it - despite the fact that to me it makes sense.

why are they banning people because of mental health issues (civilans, ex military)
 

Upcoming Events

Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top