Detroit City Council Votes For Mental Health Checks and an Ammunition Tax

detroit bullet tax reggie reg davis

courtesy arabamericannews.com

Reader John Dingell III writes:

From Click On Detroit:

“This is the city of Detroit, we continue to beat Los Angeles every year with the number of homicides, in senseless gun violence,” said Wayne County Commissioner Reggie Davis.

Davis calls his resolution “the bullet bill.” The resolution requires a mental health background on purchasers of ammunition in Wayne County, and also limits the purchase of bullets in the county. It also puts a tax on the sales of bullets.

This story is more fluff than substance. Davis is a long time Detroit political gadfly and the Detroit City Council appears to be humoring him with meaningless support, while jabbing gun owners with a sharp stick in the eye.

Reggie ‘Reg’ Davis represents District 6 on the Wayne County Commission, but only until the end of this year. He was appointed in January to replace the late Burton Leland, who resigned due to illness and died in February. Davis screwed up his affidavit of identity in April and got knocked off the ballot. Monique Baker McCormick, another Democrat, is the District 6 member-elect of the Wayne County Commission and will replace Davis in January. She has issued no position statement on this proposed ammunition ordinance.

There is a meeting of the Wayne County Commission Public Safety, Judiciary & Homeland Security committee on November 28th when this proposed ordinance should be considered, but they have not published their agenda yet. The proposed ordinance would have to be voted out of the committee to be considered by the full commission on November 29th.

I doubt this is going anywhere. It violates Michigan’s preemption statute, but our Supreme Court has not demonstrated much ‘rule of law’ lately when guns are involved.

comments

  1. avatar Scott says:

    Michigan has preemption. Get fukd.

    1. avatar Spitball says:

      “while jabbing gun owners with a sharp stick in the eye.”

      Goodness. I hope the author can shoot better than he writes.

      1. avatar dlj83544 (formerly 95118) says:

        …it does read a bit cumbersome, but, pray tell?

  2. avatar Ralph says:

    Wayne County Commissioner Reggie Davis has a point. After all, if you still live in the sh!th0le former known as Detroit, you must be insane.

    1. avatar little horn says:

      or a criminal

      1. avatar Scott says:

        Detroit is so bad that not even the criminals are sticking around. There’s nothing left to steal.

        1. avatar Gladius et Scutum says:

          I don’t think there has been even a single copper pipe left within the city limits for at least a decade.

        2. avatar GS650G says:

          Nor piece of aluminum siding

  3. avatar M1Lou says:

    They have problems with criminals doing criminal things. So they decide they want to screen law abiding people harder? Makes perfect sense to morons.

  4. avatar Randy says:

    So, the next step to reduce the number of senseless automobile accidents is to increase the tax on gasoline?????

    These people are really on to something here.

  5. avatar Jon says:

    So. What about mental health on driver’s license privilege an ownership privileges.

  6. avatar Sam I Am says:

    I think it was Elaine D who asked the question about how “mental health checks” comport with HIPPA privacy laws.

    Interesting.

    1. avatar Elaine D. says:

      Correct.

      HIPPA is federal mandate. No smart MHW would override HIPPA for a here-today gone-tomorrow temporary moment of stateside legislation.

      However, there are two ways around this. The “yes but” state workaround: (legalese follows, skip if uninterested):

      State laws that are contrary to the Privacy Rule are preempted by the Federal requirements, unless a specific exception applies. These exceptions include if the State law:

      relates to the privacy of individually identifiable health information and provides greater privacy protections or privacy rights with respect to such information,

      provides for the reporting of disease or injury, child abuse, birth, or death, or for public health surveillance, investigation, or intervention, or

      requires certain health plan reporting, such as for management or financial audits. In these circumstances, a covered entity is not required to comply with a contrary provision of the Privacy Rule.

      In addition, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) may, upon specific request from a State or other entity or person, determine that a provision of State law which is “contrary” to the Federal requirements – as defined by the HIPAA Administrative Simplification Rules – and which meets certain additional criteria, will not be preempted by the Federal requirements. Thus, preemption of a contrary State law will not occur if the Secretary or designated HHS official determines, in response to a request, that one of the following criteria apply: the State law:

      is necessary to prevent fraud and abuse related to the provision of or payment for health care,

      is necessary to ensure appropriate State regulation of insurance and health plans to the extent expressly authorized by statute or regulation,

      is necessary for State reporting on health care delivery or costs,

      is necessary for purposes of serving a compelling public health, safety, or welfare need, and, if a Privacy Rule provision is at issue, if the Secretary determines that the intrusion into privacy is warranted when balanced against the need to be served; or

      has as its principal purpose the regulation of the manufacture, registration, distribution, dispensing, or other control of any controlled substances (as defined in 21 U.S.C. 802), or that is deemed a controlled substance by State law.

      (End of legalese)

      So, a state could theoretically make a request stating that needing MH background is related to the “compelling public health, safety, or welfare need.”

      Of course, they could just tell you that you can’t apply for piece of paper XYZ without MH records, making you be the one to get them. But the question then becomes, is there really any way for them to know if you have such records or not in the absence of being able to get HIPPA data.

      It’s complicated.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Given current political attitudes, would expect Detroit to request blanket waiver for “public safety”, eliminating the need to apply individually per applicant.

        Requesting approval (blanket or individual) prevents any sales of shameful items until approval is granted. Then there would be a need to query every mental health facility in at least the state. Then further delay while facilities search and respond (who knows how long that effort would take. If I were writing the rules, approvals to purchase would not be granted until every query had a response. In addition, I would relieve any requirement for “the system” to do follow up contacts to obtain a yes/no answer.

        The Left finds denying civil rights permissible because they always believe the rules will not apply to them. But in every case, the Left eats its own eventually. The rulers become the enemies of the state, replaced by new rulers who will become enemies of the state.

        1. avatar Elaine D. says:

          Meh, happens on both sides. Witness the Mississipi abortion law that got struck down by a federal judge earlier today. It doesn’t all come from the left by any means.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Witness the Mississipi abortion law that got struck down by a federal judge earlier today. It doesn’t all come from the left by any means.”

          Not sure the connection, but the courts love murdering the unborn, and disarming the law-abiding public. Can’t see any federal court restricting gun control laws that make people feel safe, and believe they are protected from crime or hardship.

        3. avatar Sprocket says:

          Elaine, these are your people. This is who they are. This what they do. Every place in the country they have the power they do stuff like this. Own it.

        4. avatar Elaine D. says:

          @Sprocket

          The Right attempts to deny people rights ALL OF THE TIME.

          However, I promised Dan that I would not discuss abortion, immigration, voting rights, religious freedom, separation of church and state, and other similar situations on this blog, because this is a gun blog. That is the promise I made to him – to stick to guns. So I am going to do just that.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The Right attempts to deny people rights ALL OF THE TIME.”

          And there you have it. We knew it, but it took time to rip the mask off. Elaine D is just the same as any other leftist/liberal/statist/ Democrat. There is no “unique viewpoint”, or anything else special about Elaine D. She is among the effete corps of impudent snobs; nattering nabobs of negativism.

          Sadly, it turns out Elaine D is not as good as the previous gun poacher who was here for years. At least that one admitted, up front, to being a gun grabber with intentions to help hasten the day the government disarms every citizen (except gangs, criminals and elites).

          @Elaine D…
          You have answered all my questions with the single statement quoted above. No need to spend further time reading my comments. Chao; it’s been fun.

        6. avatar Elaine D. says:

          @Sam

          That’s fine, Sam. As you wish. I made DZ a promise. I’m sticking to that promise. That’s the kind of person I am.

        7. avatar Pg2 says:

          The Elaine profile has been soft selling gun control since day 1. It was entertaining watching the male posters here fawn all over an alleged pro Bill of Rights female profile.

      2. avatar Geoff "Mess with the bull, get the horns" PR says:

        “…is necessary for purposes of serving a compelling public health, safety, or welfare need…”

        Yeah. No one would *ever* abuse that…

  7. avatar Kendahl says:

    Buy your ammunition outside Wayne County. No check and no tax. Stupid idea number ???

    1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the bull, get the horns" PR says:

      It’s not ‘stupid’ in the least. It’s making you have to tap-dance to exercise a Civil Right…

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        California solved the ammunition acquisition problem.

  8. avatar ROBERT Powell says:

    detroitastan must rid theirselves of the communist riot in the cityhall.get someone other thana marxist fool and this crap can stop… that or BURN THE MESS DOWN AND START OVER….

  9. avatar pg2 says:

    Mental health and mental illness is largely subjective. The ‘chemical imbalance’ causing mental illness is pure fiction and there is literally no scientifically reproducible proof of this anywhere. There are no lab tests which can confirm or deny mental illness. All diagnosis is based on the opinion of “experts”. If we allow “experts” opinions to deny or grant our rights, it doesn’t take much imagination to see how this can be abused.

    1. avatar H says:

      Wish what you said was true. It’s not. There is a failure of receptors to pickup serotonin in people with depression. This can be remediated with meds.

      Chemical and electrical interventions do work for some mental illnesses. Therapy kinetic and talk support these interventions. Ask people in the Program.

      Physical exercise and Yoga stabilize and sustain a positive outlook in people heading toward potential mental incidents.

      If you don’t know anyone who gets hangry when their blood sugar is low we can find some for you. Perhaps you do. 🙂 Those folks suffer a complete change in view point on otherwise positive or neutral things.

      People commit suicide because their brain isn’t working correctly. They may have had enough emotional trauma as children to cause the wiring to not present positive responses to stress others brush off. New wiring can be generated.

      I don’t want officials to approve our rights. They have no right.:)

      Yet someone who would go shoot up some kids was little “a” angry, having a bad day, lost a parking space, or a sick !&:/?

      Let’s figure this out.

      1. avatar pg2 says:

        H, we don’t even know how anti-depressant drugs work, your statement that “There is a failure of receptors to pickup serotonin in people with depression” is a guess, an opinion, it is not fact.
        Low blood sugar is not the same as “chemical imbalances” causing mental illness, and trying to compare the 2 is intellectually dishonest. “People commit suicide because their brain isn’t working correctly”-More opinion. Chemical and electrical interventions working for “some” mental illnesses, while exercise and yoga working sometimes as well……There is no reproducible science behind your post, you’re repeating the opinions of “experts”.

      2. avatar pg2 says:

        “If you’ve read up on antidepressants — in newspapers and magazines, or on the Web — you might see depression explained simply as a “chemical imbalance” or a “serotonin deficiency.” Unfortunately, it’s not that simple. We really don’t know what causes depression or how it affects the brain. We don’t exactly know how antidepressants improve the symptoms” That’s from WebMD of all places. you say “Let’s figure this out” at the end of your post…posting opinion and bullshit as fact is not helping figure this out or helping our cause. The people stealing our rights rely on us to do exactly what you have done.

      3. avatar Elaine D. says:

        @H

        Contrary to what others have posted, there’s a lot more information now about potential causes of depression that can be screened for by a good, competent psychiatrist.

        1. Childhood trauma. Huge one. Untreated childhood trauma has a strong link to health problems, both physical and mental, later in life.
        2. Diet. It’s looking like a large percentage of “happy chemicals” are actually made in the gut. Americans eat a terrible diet, generally speaking. A terrible diet not only means you don’t make happy chemicals, it means that even if you take meds the meds won’t work as well. This area is the subject of a lot of interesting research right now.
        3. Vitamin depletion. B12, folate, and D. Most Americans are Vit D deficient because we don’t work outdoors like we used to. We also drink a lot of alcohol, which depletes B vitamins.
        4. A little gene called MTHFR is turning out to be a big player in depression that doesn’t respond to meds. the MTHFR problem is treated with specially forumlated vitamins, not antidepressants.
        5. Depression is probably an inflammatory illness in some cases. People who have other inflammatory illnesses also tend to be more depressed. Some research has shown that taking OTC anti inflammatories reduces feeling depressed as well.
        6. There are tests being developed for neurotransmitter levels. With meds it’s important that the right med be given because serotonin is not the only player. That’s in the works.

        As for mass shooters – they may well have been depressed, but the elaborate nature of their planning, accumulation of arms, and thought process isn’t really related to depression, it would seem, if you take FBI data at face value.

      4. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “There is a failure of receptors to pickup serotonin in people with depression. This can be remediated with meds.”

        If by “remediated” you mean a life of chasing drugs because each eventually “stops working”, or because they make life so difficult people stop taking them and try yet another drug, or “remediated” means the symptoms are not as bad as without.

        There is absolutely no substantiated medical means of determining which anti-depressant will be effective with which patient (only lists of “might be helpful”); it is all guess work, trial and error. If there were reliable tests available, it would be a matter of analyzing the genetics or the specifics of each persons particular chemical malfunction, and prescribe the missing component. Which presumes we can actually identify the deficient element in the first place, and that a reliable restoration can be created in the second place.

        When you have a hotly contested medical issue (anti-depressants work/don’t work) it is indicative of an unproven concept. Are some people temporarily helped by use of anti-depressants? Absolutely. But for how long?

        https://www.madinamerica.com/2018/03/new-study-concludes-antidepressants-largely-ineffective-potentially-harmful/

        https://www.spring.org.uk/2008/02/new-study-ssri-antidepressants-dont.php

        https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-06/tl-tlm060716.php

        https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4882420/Antidepressants-raise-risk-early-death-33.html

        https://www.anxietycentre.com/anxiety-blog/ssris-virtually-ineffective/

        https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antidepressants-do-they-work-or-dont-they/

        1. avatar Elaine d. says:

          @Sam

          You’d have to look at the work up that was done on patients in order to get answers to why things don’t work. If people didn’t get a complete or up to date workup, it’s faulty information, because the workup is what defines the subsequent treatment.

          No medication works for everyone. There are genetic factors, and diet and lifestyle factors. Meds don’t work well at all if people continue to eat like shit or drink tons of booze and so forth. That information has to be accounted for as well. The patient has a large role in how well stuff works. You’d be amazed (or maybe you wouldn’t) how often people complain that their meds “aren’t working” when they haven’t followed ANY of the lifestyle changes needed for those meds to do what they’re supposed to do. that’s when it’s time for the Personal Responsibility and How Much Do You Really Want To Feel Better talk to happen.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Have you reference to a single case where the “chemical imbalance” of the brain was isolated, all other factors driving behavior removed?

          Have you reference to a single case where a specific, discrete drug permanently restored a depression patient to the same level of mental health as people who are not depressed, yet engage in all the unhelpful behavior you identified? What was the successful treatment? Did treatment require changing medicines, ever?

          Have you reference to any scientifically established connection between a patient whose chemical imbalance (however defined) was specifically and successfully “cured” of the chemical imbalance through a single, specifically designed anti-depressant, one that permanently re-balanced the imbalance? How ’bout one that was required at specific intervals, but the patient was not required to change medications at a later date because the original drug “stopped working”?

          Bottom line is that if we cannot descriptively isolate the “chemical imbalance” in the brain or body, we cannot discretely isolate the medication to “fix” the imbalance. It is inescapable that anti-depressants are all trial-and-error attempts to obtain short-term benefits. That condition of knowledge is not bad, but it should be acknowledged for what it is.

          If it is true that people are so complex that we can never identify the chemical imbalance in every patient, and we cannot identify the medication that will restore balance, then the medical profession should admit they are operating in the realm of art, not pure science. Confess to the fact that science can produce no cures, and that the public is faced with the reality called “luck of the draw” if they are helped at all.

        3. avatar Elaine D. says:

          If your question is whether I have ever seen people get better with medication, the answer is: Yes, I have, quite a lot of them. Because they not only took the medication, they did the things that supported the medication working. Medicine is not a magic fix by itself. If a person has an unhealthy lifestyle that has to change too, just as it does for any other big health problem a sick person is trying to solve. Medicine is only part of a treatment regime; it’s not the whole thing.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          We have already acknowledged that people do “get better” (a remarkably vague term) with anti-depressants. But the failure of mental health is to claim that chemical imbalance in the brain is the root cause, and insist that trial-and-error can only make some people “get better”, but not restored. (I acknowledge that not all mental health issues are depression, or related to depression)

          Think about it…if chemicals in pill/liquid form could restore the chemical imbalance in a person’s brain, would talk therapy, behavior modification, lifestyle changes be needed to help a person “get better”? A person can be a total reprobate, a physical hazardous waste dump, yet not suffer mental illness. We would presume that such a person does not suffer chemical imbalance of the brain. How would behavior and lifestyle modification restore the brain’s chemical balance when it is not disturbed?

          The mental health profession doesn’t want to admit that they believe, without proof, that depression is the expression of a chemically imbalanced brain, yet, the imbalance cannot be identified, and drug treatment is an educated guess that does not have any basis in actual knowledge of the interactions between the brain and those elusive chemicals that stay imbalanced. To not admit that conundrum to patients and the public helps earn mental health practitioners the doubt and scorn they face. It is the worst deception to hold out hope beyond best guess attempts at drug treatment for people suffering depression. And focusing on drugs ignores the real possibility that failed coping skills, and a life filled with negative thoughts (we either control our thoughts,or they will control us) are more at root than the unproven but believed cause called “chemical imbalance”. Seriously, I think treatment of depression is based more on faith in failed science than on actual, provable, reproducible results.

        5. avatar Elaine D. says:

          @Sam

          Not all of it has to do with “imbalance.” New research suggests it may have a lot to do with receptors. More of them or less of them. Also prenatal conditions for the mother. Stress hormones being able to cross the blood-brain barrier, something which was previously thought not to be possible. And so forth. The science keeps evolving and the job of a good practitioner is to keep up with it.

          As far as “scorn” for mental health professionals can’t say that I’ve ever encountered that in real life. So, no thoughts on the matter because it doesn’t match my actual experience in any way. The Internet, well, it’s the Internet. People are full of scorn for any and everything on the Internet, just cause they can, behind the safe anonymity of keyboards.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          You have identified that treating depression is not science, but hope for science. That no one can predict with reliability which drugs will be effective, and for how long. As I pointed out, treating depression is largely art (which is unfortunate for those treated by the less skilled, or lucky, artisans). Nothing wrong with the admission, but overall, mental health practitioners want the public to believe they have more capability that they do.

          As for scorn, your own government is typical…have a look at the medicare rules for treating mental health issues. No, wait, here it is for you:
          https://www.medicare.gov/Pubs/pdf/10184-Medicare-Mental-Health-Bene.pdf
          page 11, para 2
          “Section 2: Inpatient mental health care
          What Original Medicare covers
          Medicare Part A (Hospital Insurance) helps pay for mental health services you get in a hospital that require you to be admitted as an inpatient. You can get these services either in a general hospital
          or in a psychiatric hospital that only cares for people with mental health conditions. No matter which type of hospital you choose, Part A will help cover inpatient mental health services.
          If you’re in a psychiatric hospital (instead of a general hospital), Part A only pays for —–>; up to 190 days of inpatient psychiatric hospital services during your lifetime ” <;—–

          Why do you suppose there is a 190 LIFETIME benefit? Could it be because mental health issues are viewed skeptically by the all caring, all beneficent, all compassionate federal government? Skeptically, or scorned, I see no real difference.

        7. avatar Elaine D. says:

          @Sam

          Mmmm….no, that’s not what I said. But it would take going through roughly 10 years of reading, reviewing data, consultation and continuing ed to explain what I do mean, and I’m just not feeling that at the moment.

          Pretty much all treatment plans have limits on coverage. Private health insurance does as well. It’s because inpatient hospitalization on a 24/7 basis is damned expensive. This is also why there are lifetime “caps” on treatment benefits for other conditions such as cancer. Had a friend go through that recently. He couldn’t get the new treatment he needed because it would have exceeded his insurance “cap.” Pretty typical. It’s because of what it costs, not because it doesn’t work. You see that all the time with treatment for other kinds of illnesses as well.

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Isn’t it interesting that the caps on other medical interventions are greater, with longer periods covered?

        9. avatar Elaine D. says:

          It would be interesting if it were true. But it’s not. My friend only needed between 5 and 10 treatments. Proven treatment, too, not experimental. They still wouldn’t pay for it. Or rather, they would have paid for it if he was under or over certain ages. There’s a whole scam about that particular treatment that started unraveling about a week ago and who the insurers are deciding to cover, and not.

        10. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “There’s a whole scam about that particular treatment that started unraveling about a week ago and who the insurers are deciding to cover, and not.”

          That should be an informative episode to write about. Always interested in medical scams. Pays to be watchful.

        11. avatar Elaine D. says:

          @Sam

          Maybe it’s a scandal rather than a scam. Not sure which applies maybe both. Aetna got handed a 25 million fine on it, here.

          https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/10/health/aetna-verdict-oklahoma-orrana-cunningham/index.html

          Insurers do this crap all the time – deny people proven treatment that works because they don’t want to pay for it, or “reclassify” proven treatments as “experimental” so they don’t have to pay for it. Typical crap.

        12. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Thanks for the link.

          Putting insurers in the medical business is not an optimum approach, but neither is government-rationed healthcare. Insurance companies are not in business to make payouts. It is always with great skepticism that I rent insurance for whatever purpose. Got hit at a traffic light years ago. Wet streets, the attacker was driving too fast for wet pavement, and trying to make a right turn; skidded into front fender. Got a copy of the police investigation and filed a claim with the attacker’s insurance company (considered myself blessed the guy actually had insurance). Had to rent a car for myself. Three weeks after filing the report, contact with the insurance company resulted with “We’re working on it; call back in three weeks”. Called back on schedule and immediately got the inter-department shuffle. After an hour got a rep who said they had not report of an accident. Pointing out that they had had the police report, was informed that until the insured notified the of the accident, they were not obligated to honor any claims. The representative admitted that they hoped all their customers delayed reporting accidents indefinitely; money in the bank earned interest, money paid in claims reduced earned interest. Lesson learned.

        13. avatar Pg2 says:

          Elaine, mental health and mental illness is 100% subjunctive, or opinion. If you have some evidence based science that contradicts this, please cite it.

        14. avatar Elaine D. says:

          @Sam

          Yeah. I mean basically insurers hope that you either die or give up or are so badly off from what’s happened or is happening to you that you won’t try to collect the services you are paying them good money for.

          Socialized medicine has its own problems for sure. I’ve experienced it in other countries. But it also has benefits, one of those benefits being that (at least in the places I was) you can get care. You won’t be turned away for lack of money. You won’t go bankrupt over health bills. And while the care is not what we are used to in the States it can be quite solid indeed. Socialized medicine saved my life in Africa in July. Namibia follows the Cuban medical system. It was not fancy stars bells and whistles health care but it completely did what it was supposed to do.

          I just don’t think you can have a system where people both get care and also can get all these new fancy expensive drugs, 18 versions of everything with only slight differences. You kind of have to choose one or the other. We like our drugs and having lots of choice here so we choose (B) and we pay for it and also have to deal with this rapacious system always trying to not deliver on what we are paying for.

          My own doctor – who is a gun guy – is in favor of socialized medicine. He told me that 80% of health care dollars in this country is spent during the last 6 months of life. In other words to slightly prolong the life of someone who is going to die anyway. And the rest of us pay for that and can’t get what we need for our healthy years. Stupid.

          @PG2

          Untrue. Lots of clinical data and research. It’s been years, decades, since mental health was “subjective.” That was before we had tests, procedures, and technology to figure out what’s going on.

        15. avatar Pg2 says:

          Where’s the science Elaine? I call BS. All mental illness is subjective, the opinion of “experts”. Feel to prove me wrong, but you can’t, because you’re repeating the opinions of “experts” and you have no evidence based research to back your opinions. You’re either being intentionally dishonest about this subject, or you’re trying to cover for your ignorance on the subject.

        16. avatar Elaine D. says:

          @pg2

          Aren’t you the anti-vaxxer guy? Or is that someone else?

          See, if you’re the anti-vaxxer guy, you actually don’t believe in science as a whole. That’s why I’m not getting into it with you. Do the research yourself. You have fingers, a keyboard, and Google to help you. I don’t have to do it for you.

          And hey, believe what you want to believe. Nobody’s trying to convince you to use mental health. It’s voluntary! Do what you want!

        17. avatar Pg2 says:

          Lol, that’s priceless, so instead of you actually providing some scientific proof of your claims, you instead fall back and accuse me of being anti-science. Guess these troll tactics work in an increasing dumbed down world. You’re soft selling gun control under the false premise of mental illness, where the state “experts” can declare anyone mentally ill without an ounce of hard proof. Nice try Elaine.

      5. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Even at the extreme, on the street, ballistic intervention has often been successful and is usually permanent.

        OTOH, I have never seen much reference to anyone who could be called a “good, competent psychiatrist”. Seems they’re mostly sick puppies.

        1. avatar Elaine d. says:

          @LarryinTX

          I’m not saying they’re astoundingly common. But they are out there. I have a couple of really good ones I work closely with.

          What makes a good psychiatrist good:
          —being abreast of the current research in the field – ie being informed about things like current research on cannabis, microdosing of hallucinogens, light therapy, magnetic therapy etc. – all the stuff that is currently being researched
          —doing THOROUGH evaluation which means blood tests, hormone levels, vitamin tests, genetic testing for MTHFR if it seems indicated; interviewing the patient about diet, lifestyle, relationships, substance use and social support
          —Working in tandem with the patient’s therapist and helping them get to needed therapeutic services if they don’t have them, as the conjunction of psychiatry and therapy has been shown to work the best for most folks
          —Being non judgmental, asking good questions, and keeping trying things until something works – being persistent in finding a solution while also holding the patient accountable for their part of the deal.

          That’s what a real, good, THOROUGH psychiatrist visit looks like. Psychiatry is not what it was 20 years ago, and if people are still practicing that way…the patient needs to find someone who’s more up to date.

        2. avatar Pg2 says:

          Elaine, psychiatry is quackery. Can you post ANY evidence based science that supports psychiatry?

        3. avatar Ad Astra says:

          Now you sound like a scientology newsletter.

        4. avatar Pg2 says:

          AA, way to dodge the question….

        5. avatar Elaine D. says:

          @PG

          No, I’m not going to post 10 years worth of evidence based research on brain stuff on a gun blog. That’s what Google is for. You’re not actually interested in the information – only in your own point of view – so it would be a waste of time.

          However, if the interest ever does grab you, you could start with the interesting story of Phineas Gage and how that case was one of the first ones that started the chain of study on how what happens to your brain affects your personality. It’s the same line of research that’s used now in studying things like TBI. There’s not some kind of hard divide between “mental” and “physical.”

        6. avatar Pg2 says:

          I have tried google Elaine, you are wrong on this. The whole premise of chemical inbalance being the cause of mental illness is an unproven theory. There are NO lab tests which can confirm or deny any mental illness. All mental illness diagnoses are made by OPINION. These are facts you can ignore as much as you want, but your ignoring these facts won’t make them go away.

  10. avatar Kyle says:

    it always amazes me how a city, state, whatever, can be totally destroyed, (and in the case of Detroit, destroyed is the only applicable term), by liberal concepts, and yet they go back for more over and over again.

    It just continues to stun me.

    1. avatar General Zod says:

      Because liberals are masters of deflecting blame for their failures while claiming credit for the accomplishments of conservatives. Barack Obama is a perfect example – his sabotage of the economy was blamed on GW Bush – “yeah, but look at the economy he inherited from Bush!” – and now that the Trump administration has turned it around and hit growth numbers Obama insisted we’d never see again, guess who is trying to take credit…

  11. avatar former water walker says:

    We’ve had this in Cook county for awhile. I buy all my ammo & guns in Indiana. And my last transfer went through Borderline in Will county…eff ’em! They’re already blaming lax laws in Chiraq for the hospital shootings. The SOB had a CCL BUT had threatened people,shot at someone AND had a restraining order filed by the murdered doctor…sigh.

  12. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Will the courts uphold preemption? I am doubtful since that requires government to limit itself — and governments never seem to willingly limit themselves.

    I think a more likely outcome is that the courts in Michigan will uphold Wayne County’s ordinances based on Wayne County Commission’s claim that these ordinances “promote public safety” or “serve a compelling government interest”.

    (In case you have been living under a rock, the courts seem to uphold anything and everything with those two “justifications”.)

    1. avatar Elaine D. says:

      I don’t know that a single city/county can make a request for waiving HIPPA. It looks like it would have to be the state itself.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Of course a single county can make such a request, hell, a single *individual* can make such a request. And several years later, after several million dollars worth of “research”, a decision will be made whether such a request is authorized. That is what “resist” is all about, just yell and screech about silliness and delay any progress whatsoever.

        1. avatar Elaine D. says:

          I don’t know, Larry. HIPPA is a very, very, very big deal. Any entity trying to pre-empt would need to have some very good reasons indeed.

  13. avatar bobo says:

    I could fix this the mess of Detroit in a day

    10 mile circle zone around city center, 100% biz tax free…local and state!
    biz to biz pays 25% of normal sales taxes

    the companies would off each other fighting to get in!

  14. avatar raptor jesus says:

    Ok. Apply a tax. I’ll just order online like I normally do (tax free), and maybe residents of Michigan will learn how to do so as well.

    1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the bull, get the horns" PR says:

      And when Michigan pulls a California and criminalizes ammunition home deliveries?

  15. avatar GS650G says:

    They should do mental evaluations on Wayne county politicians

  16. avatar RGP says:

    Now there will never be another crime in Detroit, and the citizens of that fair metropolis can now sleep at night knowing that the world is a safer place, or something like that.

    The resident retards voted for those retards, it’s their problem.

  17. avatar Ed Schrade says:

    RGP…..Looks like they have decided that being dumb got them where they are so being even dumber ( if possible ) is the answer. Or maybe they didn’t realize the first mistake.

  18. Proposed 25 September 1789
    Ratified 15 December 1791

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Bill of Rights

  19. Proposed 25 September 1789
    Ratified 15 December 1791

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Bill of Rights

  20. Proposed 25 September 1789
    Ratified 15 December 1791

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    Bill of Rights

  21. Proposed 25 September 1789
    Ratified 15 December 1791

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

    Bill of Rights

  22. Proposed 25 September 1789
    Ratified 15 December 1791

    In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

    Bill of Rights

  23. Proposed 25 September 1789
    Ratified 15 December 1791

    Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

    Bill of Rights

  24. Proposed 25 September 1789
    Ratified 15 December 1791

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Bill of Rights

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Your point being….?

      A single link to the BOR would have been sufficient.

  25. avatar Ryan says:

    Pretty sure that equal infringing.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email