User login
This week, the state of New York passed the Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE) Act of 2013 in response to the December shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. This act, which was promptly signed into law by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, is one of the earliest legislative responses to this incident but it surely won’t be the last. Many people are scrutinizing it in anticipation of their own pending legislation.
I’ve heard a lot of discussion among my colleagues about what a law like this might mean for clinical practice, so I thought I would review it for myself. I’m not an attorney, and I’m sure some nuances of the law may eventually be addressed through the court system, but here are my initial impressions.
First, many of the provisions seem pretty reasonable: a limit on who can purchase weapons, or a revocation of licensure, for anyone convicted of certain violent offenses or for anyone against whom a protective order was granted. Some of the listed crimes, such as stalking and violation of a protective order, seem particularly geared toward domestic violence offenders.
In what I suspect will be a plus for abuse victims, the law now requires protective order respondents to surrender their weapons and the judge granting the order to revoke the firearm license of the respondent. Although laws vary between states, some states currently don’t grant police the authority to confiscate the weapons of domestic violence offenders pending a conviction. I think limiting access to weapons in a household with this level of conflict is probably a good thing. It also might save a few people from getting shot at the door of the courthouse following a custody hearing.
Consistent with other states, New York now will revoke the license of anyone placed under guardianship due to psychiatric or developmental disability, as well as for anyone civilly or criminally committed to a psychiatric hospital. What was unclear to me was the mechanism by which the authorities would ensure that the weapon(s) were in fact removed, but maybe those are details that remain to be worked out.
The aspect of the law that has drawn the most attention from my psychiatric colleagues, as well as from the media and the general public, is the requirement that mental health practitioners report suspected dangerous patients to authorities. This raised an obvious degree of alarm along with attendant fears of further stigmatization of psychiatric patients.
Here’s what Mental Health Law 9.46 actually says:
“Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, when a mental
health professional currently providing treatment services to a person
determines, in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment, that
such person is likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious
harm to self or others, he or she shall be required to report, as soon
as practicable, to the director of community services, or the director’s
designee, who shall report to the division of criminal justice services
whenever he or she agrees that the person is likely to engage in such
conduct.” (emphasis added)
OK, there's a little more nuance to this than what has been reported in the traditional media. The clinician is not required to report patients directly to the police, and in spite of the apparent mandatory language might not be required to report to the firearms regulators at all. The “mandatory report” must be to the clinician’s director, who then reviews the case and determines, using reasonable professional judgment, whether the risk is sufficient to warrant a revocation of a licensed firearm. The language of the immunity clause additionally supports this permissive interpretation:
“The decision of a mental health professional to disclose or not to
disclose in accordance with this section, when made reasonably and in
good faith, shall not be the basis for any civil or criminal liability
of such mental health professional.” (emphasis added)
In either case, the law is clear that the only information to be disclosed is non-clinical, identity-based information. The agency receiving the information is required to destroy it after 5 years, or upon restoration of legal gun ownership rights. This is not a label that will be placed upon someone forever. Before I read the law I shared the concerns of my colleagues that this would lead to a tremendous expansion of a Tarasoff duty, but it appears that it stayed more true to the original New York Tarasoff law than I expected. The New York medical confidentiality laws permit disclosure of patient information to the police when the danger is “serious and imminent,” but does not mandate disclosure.
The SAFE Act may actually be more protective of patient confidentiality in that it specifically limits disclosure to non-clinical information. The Tarasoff law has no such limitation.
Finally, one aspect of the law might be more problematic for clinicians but has been given no media attention. The SAFE Act requires the Office of Mental Health to develop an administrative process by which a gun owner can have his or her rights restored. The standard of review is that the individual “will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and where the granting of the relief would not be contrary to public safety.” I’m sure there will be a few vigorous debates and sleepless nights over the determination of exactly what “not likely” means and how someone will prove that he or she is really safe. Assessment of competency to own and use a weapon is one thing I was not taught in residency.
The act also extends the current assisted outpatient treatment law, closes some loopholes in the law, and adds additional steps to identify eligible patients, but the specifics of this are beyond the scope of this column. The act modifies nine previously existing laws and these complicated pieces of legislation sometimes result in unanticipated contradictions that will get litigated over time. Until then, I think clinicians have some breathing room to know the law might not be as onerous as was first reported.
—Annette Hanson, M.D.
DR. HANSON is a forensic psychiatrist and co-author of Shrink Rap: Three Psychiatrists Explain Their Work. The opinions expressed are those of the author only, and do not represent those of any of Dr. Hanson’s employers or consultees, including the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene or the Maryland Division of Correction.
This week, the state of New York passed the Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE) Act of 2013 in response to the December shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. This act, which was promptly signed into law by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, is one of the earliest legislative responses to this incident but it surely won’t be the last. Many people are scrutinizing it in anticipation of their own pending legislation.
I’ve heard a lot of discussion among my colleagues about what a law like this might mean for clinical practice, so I thought I would review it for myself. I’m not an attorney, and I’m sure some nuances of the law may eventually be addressed through the court system, but here are my initial impressions.
First, many of the provisions seem pretty reasonable: a limit on who can purchase weapons, or a revocation of licensure, for anyone convicted of certain violent offenses or for anyone against whom a protective order was granted. Some of the listed crimes, such as stalking and violation of a protective order, seem particularly geared toward domestic violence offenders.
In what I suspect will be a plus for abuse victims, the law now requires protective order respondents to surrender their weapons and the judge granting the order to revoke the firearm license of the respondent. Although laws vary between states, some states currently don’t grant police the authority to confiscate the weapons of domestic violence offenders pending a conviction. I think limiting access to weapons in a household with this level of conflict is probably a good thing. It also might save a few people from getting shot at the door of the courthouse following a custody hearing.
Consistent with other states, New York now will revoke the license of anyone placed under guardianship due to psychiatric or developmental disability, as well as for anyone civilly or criminally committed to a psychiatric hospital. What was unclear to me was the mechanism by which the authorities would ensure that the weapon(s) were in fact removed, but maybe those are details that remain to be worked out.
The aspect of the law that has drawn the most attention from my psychiatric colleagues, as well as from the media and the general public, is the requirement that mental health practitioners report suspected dangerous patients to authorities. This raised an obvious degree of alarm along with attendant fears of further stigmatization of psychiatric patients.
Here’s what Mental Health Law 9.46 actually says:
“Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, when a mental
health professional currently providing treatment services to a person
determines, in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment, that
such person is likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious
harm to self or others, he or she shall be required to report, as soon
as practicable, to the director of community services, or the director’s
designee, who shall report to the division of criminal justice services
whenever he or she agrees that the person is likely to engage in such
conduct.” (emphasis added)
OK, there's a little more nuance to this than what has been reported in the traditional media. The clinician is not required to report patients directly to the police, and in spite of the apparent mandatory language might not be required to report to the firearms regulators at all. The “mandatory report” must be to the clinician’s director, who then reviews the case and determines, using reasonable professional judgment, whether the risk is sufficient to warrant a revocation of a licensed firearm. The language of the immunity clause additionally supports this permissive interpretation:
“The decision of a mental health professional to disclose or not to
disclose in accordance with this section, when made reasonably and in
good faith, shall not be the basis for any civil or criminal liability
of such mental health professional.” (emphasis added)
In either case, the law is clear that the only information to be disclosed is non-clinical, identity-based information. The agency receiving the information is required to destroy it after 5 years, or upon restoration of legal gun ownership rights. This is not a label that will be placed upon someone forever. Before I read the law I shared the concerns of my colleagues that this would lead to a tremendous expansion of a Tarasoff duty, but it appears that it stayed more true to the original New York Tarasoff law than I expected. The New York medical confidentiality laws permit disclosure of patient information to the police when the danger is “serious and imminent,” but does not mandate disclosure.
The SAFE Act may actually be more protective of patient confidentiality in that it specifically limits disclosure to non-clinical information. The Tarasoff law has no such limitation.
Finally, one aspect of the law might be more problematic for clinicians but has been given no media attention. The SAFE Act requires the Office of Mental Health to develop an administrative process by which a gun owner can have his or her rights restored. The standard of review is that the individual “will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and where the granting of the relief would not be contrary to public safety.” I’m sure there will be a few vigorous debates and sleepless nights over the determination of exactly what “not likely” means and how someone will prove that he or she is really safe. Assessment of competency to own and use a weapon is one thing I was not taught in residency.
The act also extends the current assisted outpatient treatment law, closes some loopholes in the law, and adds additional steps to identify eligible patients, but the specifics of this are beyond the scope of this column. The act modifies nine previously existing laws and these complicated pieces of legislation sometimes result in unanticipated contradictions that will get litigated over time. Until then, I think clinicians have some breathing room to know the law might not be as onerous as was first reported.
—Annette Hanson, M.D.
DR. HANSON is a forensic psychiatrist and co-author of Shrink Rap: Three Psychiatrists Explain Their Work. The opinions expressed are those of the author only, and do not represent those of any of Dr. Hanson’s employers or consultees, including the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene or the Maryland Division of Correction.
This week, the state of New York passed the Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE) Act of 2013 in response to the December shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. This act, which was promptly signed into law by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, is one of the earliest legislative responses to this incident but it surely won’t be the last. Many people are scrutinizing it in anticipation of their own pending legislation.
I’ve heard a lot of discussion among my colleagues about what a law like this might mean for clinical practice, so I thought I would review it for myself. I’m not an attorney, and I’m sure some nuances of the law may eventually be addressed through the court system, but here are my initial impressions.
First, many of the provisions seem pretty reasonable: a limit on who can purchase weapons, or a revocation of licensure, for anyone convicted of certain violent offenses or for anyone against whom a protective order was granted. Some of the listed crimes, such as stalking and violation of a protective order, seem particularly geared toward domestic violence offenders.
In what I suspect will be a plus for abuse victims, the law now requires protective order respondents to surrender their weapons and the judge granting the order to revoke the firearm license of the respondent. Although laws vary between states, some states currently don’t grant police the authority to confiscate the weapons of domestic violence offenders pending a conviction. I think limiting access to weapons in a household with this level of conflict is probably a good thing. It also might save a few people from getting shot at the door of the courthouse following a custody hearing.
Consistent with other states, New York now will revoke the license of anyone placed under guardianship due to psychiatric or developmental disability, as well as for anyone civilly or criminally committed to a psychiatric hospital. What was unclear to me was the mechanism by which the authorities would ensure that the weapon(s) were in fact removed, but maybe those are details that remain to be worked out.
The aspect of the law that has drawn the most attention from my psychiatric colleagues, as well as from the media and the general public, is the requirement that mental health practitioners report suspected dangerous patients to authorities. This raised an obvious degree of alarm along with attendant fears of further stigmatization of psychiatric patients.
Here’s what Mental Health Law 9.46 actually says:
“Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, when a mental
health professional currently providing treatment services to a person
determines, in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment, that
such person is likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious
harm to self or others, he or she shall be required to report, as soon
as practicable, to the director of community services, or the director’s
designee, who shall report to the division of criminal justice services
whenever he or she agrees that the person is likely to engage in such
conduct.” (emphasis added)
OK, there's a little more nuance to this than what has been reported in the traditional media. The clinician is not required to report patients directly to the police, and in spite of the apparent mandatory language might not be required to report to the firearms regulators at all. The “mandatory report” must be to the clinician’s director, who then reviews the case and determines, using reasonable professional judgment, whether the risk is sufficient to warrant a revocation of a licensed firearm. The language of the immunity clause additionally supports this permissive interpretation:
“The decision of a mental health professional to disclose or not to
disclose in accordance with this section, when made reasonably and in
good faith, shall not be the basis for any civil or criminal liability
of such mental health professional.” (emphasis added)
In either case, the law is clear that the only information to be disclosed is non-clinical, identity-based information. The agency receiving the information is required to destroy it after 5 years, or upon restoration of legal gun ownership rights. This is not a label that will be placed upon someone forever. Before I read the law I shared the concerns of my colleagues that this would lead to a tremendous expansion of a Tarasoff duty, but it appears that it stayed more true to the original New York Tarasoff law than I expected. The New York medical confidentiality laws permit disclosure of patient information to the police when the danger is “serious and imminent,” but does not mandate disclosure.
The SAFE Act may actually be more protective of patient confidentiality in that it specifically limits disclosure to non-clinical information. The Tarasoff law has no such limitation.
Finally, one aspect of the law might be more problematic for clinicians but has been given no media attention. The SAFE Act requires the Office of Mental Health to develop an administrative process by which a gun owner can have his or her rights restored. The standard of review is that the individual “will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and where the granting of the relief would not be contrary to public safety.” I’m sure there will be a few vigorous debates and sleepless nights over the determination of exactly what “not likely” means and how someone will prove that he or she is really safe. Assessment of competency to own and use a weapon is one thing I was not taught in residency.
The act also extends the current assisted outpatient treatment law, closes some loopholes in the law, and adds additional steps to identify eligible patients, but the specifics of this are beyond the scope of this column. The act modifies nine previously existing laws and these complicated pieces of legislation sometimes result in unanticipated contradictions that will get litigated over time. Until then, I think clinicians have some breathing room to know the law might not be as onerous as was first reported.
—Annette Hanson, M.D.
DR. HANSON is a forensic psychiatrist and co-author of Shrink Rap: Three Psychiatrists Explain Their Work. The opinions expressed are those of the author only, and do not represent those of any of Dr. Hanson’s employers or consultees, including the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene or the Maryland Division of Correction.