Editorial: I-1491 could work against those it seeks to protect
Published 1:30 am Tuesday, October 25, 2016
By The Herald Editorial Board
When we talk about gun violence and issues of depression and mental health, the focus often is on homicides. In many mass shootings — including those we have recently been in close and terrible proximity to — questions are easily raised about the stability of those who commit violence.
But, in truth, the greater threat, where firearms and mental illness cross paths, is to the person holding the gun. Suicide accounts for more than 60 percent of the deaths from firearms in this country, and it’s the second-most common cause of death among those between 15 and 34 years of age, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Removing the threat that firearms pose to those with depression or other mental illness would appear to be a reasonable gun safety measure. But as addressed in Initiative 1491, the proposal to remove firearms from the possession of those deemed a threat to themselves and others, carries unintended consequences that could work against those suffering depression and mental illness and their families.
Based on law that provides domestic violence protection orders, the initiative would create extreme-risk protection orders that would allow family or law enforcement to seek a judge’s order requiring the surrender of firearms and bar the purchase of firearms to “persons exhibiting mental illness, violent or other behavior” that could harm themselves or others.
A judge could issue a temporary 14-day order — without the subject of the order present — with enough evidence of immediate danger. A full one-year order would require a hearing, where the subject of the order would have to be present with legal representation. Renewal of the order would require a new hearing.
Opposition to the initiative has not come from the NRA and other gun rights groups, but tellingly from some mental health advocates, including David Combs, who runs mental health support groups and serves on mental health and disability boards.
Those with mental illness are as much as 10 times more likely to be the victims rather than the perpetrators of violence; only 3 percent to 5 percent of violent crimes are committed by those with mental illness, Combs told The Herald Editorial Board.
The initiative, Combs said, could stigmatize, rather than protect, those with mental illness.
While the Washington state chapter of the National Alliance on Mental Illness has taken a neutral position on the initiative — as has the American Civil Liberties Union — in an email to Combs, NAMI said it was concerned that the initiative could deter people from seeking treatment and reinforce false perceptions about mental illness and gun violence.
Fortunately, families are not left without a way to seek help. Now in effect for less than a year, the Legislature recently passed Joel’s Law, which allows family members to seek involuntary detention and treatment for those who might pose a risk to the themselves and others.
Removing firearms from the possession of someone suffering mental illness offers the potential to remove an immediate threat, but it does nothing to treat the health of the person involved or remove a threat by other means.
In passing Joel’s Law, however, the Legislature must now commit to adequately funding the treatment beds and programs that families would seek to use.
Washington voters showed careful consideration when they approved Initiative 594 in 2014, which extended background checks to all sales of firearms. We trust that voters will show the same consideration in rejecting a well-intentioned but flawed measure in I-1491.
