04 21 2015
  2:49 am  
     •     
40 Years of Service
gun and bullets

Many legal gun owners with mental illness may not store their guns safely, and for some, there are times when secure storage outside of the home is required.

What to do with a gun when your home is not safe?  What to do with a gun when YOU are not safe?

The National Institute of Mental Health estimates 26.2 percent of Americans have a diagnosable mental illness - that’s over 82 million people. And, like it or not, the vast majority of people with mental illness have the constitutional right to own a gun.

Only a few Americans are prohibited from gun ownership. They include those who have been involuntarily committed or have been judged “guilty but insane” of a crime - a small percentage of the total.

Tens of millions of others have the same right as you do to own a firearm, and certainly some among them will exercise that right.

Look at it another way: according to the General Social Survey, 34 percent of Americans already own a gun, or 106.7 million.  We could estimate that 26.2 percent of them - just short of 28 million - will also have a diagnosable mental illness.

That’s more than the population of Texas.

The vast majority of gun owners with mental illness are responsible, never commit a crime, and take gun security seriously.

That’s why gun owners with mental illness need a gun storage plan - because they’re responsible, law-abiding and serious. But they also know there may be times in their life where gun violence is a risk - mainly to themselves - and it’s unsafe to have a firearm accessible.

Local gun shops advised me there is no private gun storage business in the area. General storage companies rent storage space by the month, but those same weapons experts wouldn’t store their guns in a rental storage unit: it’s not sufficiently secure, or sufficiently insured, for firearms.

When asked how to store a gun, the experts had two pieces of advice. The first was adult Americans should be armed at all times. The second was if you can’t keep a gun safe, you should sell it. Both are extreme and impractical solutions.

If you’re a gun owner who’s entering a period of crisis and needs safe storage for your weapons, here are some solutions you can reasonably and practically accomplish.

For a single pistol, any quality gun shop can sell you a two-lock pistol safe. It looks like a small tool case and has both a combination lock and a key lock. Cost is about $160. Double lock your pistol in the case and give the key to a trusted friend or family member for the duration. Talk with them clearly and frankly about when to return the key - and when not to return the key.

Here’s another thing you can do.

Call your local police bureau’s non-emergency number and ask for an officer to come by your home and take your gun into secure storage. The service is free, available for as many weapons as you want stored, for up to 90 days. The officer who comes by can give you the details, and will provide you with case number and inventory receipt to retrieve your property.

Finally, here’s some advice for contacting the police.

Call ahead and tell them you have a weapon you would like taken into inventory.  There’s no need to tell officers on the phone or when they arrive about mental illness or drug or alcohol use. That is not required – or expected. Keep it simple. The dispatcher may ask you what clinic you go to or what medicines you take. Just decline to answer.

When officers arrive at your home, leave your weapon in the house, keep the door open, and come outside to meet them. Show your hands at all times. Show the officers your identification. Follow the officer’s instructions. For their safety and yours, officers may ask you to sit or lie down on the ground while they secure the weapon.

Keep cool, keep calm. And have a plan for that gun.

Jason Renaud is a longtime mental health advocate with the Mental Health Association of Portland.

 

 

Pacific NW Carpenters Union

Commenting Guidelines

  • Keep it clean: Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language
  • No personal attacks: We reserve the right to remove offensive comments
  • Be truthful: Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything
  • Be nice: No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person
  • Help us: If you see an abusive post, let us know at info@theskanner.com
  • Keep to topic: We will remove irrelevant posts and spam
  • Share with us: We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts; the history behind an article

Recently Published by The Skanner News

  • Default
  • Title
  • Date
  • Random
  • When should we use military to enforce US goals? NASHUA, N.H. (AP) — Rand Paul lashed out Saturday at military hawks in the Republican Party in a clash over foreign policy dividing the packed GOP presidential field. Paul, a first-term senator from Kentucky who favors a smaller U.S. footprint in the world, said that some of his Republican colleagues would do more harm in international affairs than would leading Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton. "The other Republicans will criticize the president and Hillary Clinton for their foreign policy, but they would just have done the same thing — just 10 times over," Paul said on the closing day of a New Hampshire GOP conference that brought about 20 presidential prospects to the first-in-the-nation primary state. "There's a group of folks in our party who would have troops in six countries right now, maybe more," Paul said. Foreign policy looms large in the presidential race as the U.S. struggles to resolve diplomatic and military conflicts across the globe. The GOP presidential class regularly rails against President Barack Obama's leadership on the world stage, yet some would-be contenders have yet to articulate their own positions, while others offered sharply different visions. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, whose brother, President George W. Bush, authorized the 2003 invasion of Iraq, declined to say whether he would have done anything different then. Yet Jeb Bush acknowledged a shift in his party against new military action abroad. "Our enemies need to fear us, a little bit, just enough for them to deter the actions that create insecurity," Bush said earlier in the conference. He said restoring alliances "that will create less likelihood of America's boots on the ground has to be the priority, the first priority of the next president." The GOP's hawks were well represented at the event, led by Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who has limited foreign policy experience but articulated a muscular vision during his Saturday keynote address. Walker said the threats posed by radical Islamic terrorism won't be handled simply with "a couple bombings." "We're not going to wait till they bring the fight to us," Walker said. "We're going to bring the fight to them and fight on their soil." South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham addressed the question of putting U.S. troops directly in the battle against the Islamic State group militants by saying there is only one way to defeat the militants: "You go over there and you fight them so they don't come here." Texas Sen. Ted Cruz suggested an aggressive approach as well. "The way to defeat ISIS is a simple and clear military objective," he said. "We will destroy them." Businesswoman Carly Fiorina offered a similar outlook. "The world is a more dangerous and more tragic place when America is not leading. And America has not led for quite some time," she said. Under Obama, a U.S.-led coalition of Western and Arab countries is conducting regular airstrikes against Islamic State targets in Iraq and Syria. The U.S. also has hundreds of military advisers in Iraq helping Iraqi security forces plan operations against the Islamic State, which occupies large chunks of northern and western Iraq. Paul didn't totally reject the use of military force, noting that he recently introduced a declaration of war against the Islamic State group. But in an interview with The Associated Press, he emphasized the importance of diplomacy. He singled out Russia and China, which have complicated relationships with the U.S., as countries that could contribute to U.S. foreign policy interests. "I think the Russians and the Chinese have great potential to help make the world a better place," he said. "I don't say that naively that they're going to, but they have the potential to." Paul suggested the Russians could help by getting Syrian President Bashar Assad to leave power. "Maybe he goes to Russia," Paul said. Despite tensions with the U.S., Russia and China negotiated alongside Washington in nuclear talks with Iran. Paul has said he is keeping an open mind about the nuclear negotiations. "The people who already are very skeptical, very doubtful, may not like the president for partisan reasons," he said, and "just may want war instead of negotiations."
    Read More
  • Some lawmakers, sensing a tipping point, are backing the parents and teachers who complain about 'high stakes' tests   
    Read More
  • Watch Rachel Maddow interview VA Secretary Robert McDonald  
    Read More
  • Some two thousand people pack halls to hear Trayvon Martin's mom speak   
    Read More
load morehold SHIFT key to load allload all
Carpentry Professionals

PHOTO GALLERY

Calendar

About Us

Breaking News

The Skanner TV

Turn the pages

Portland Opera Showboat 2
The Skanner Photo Archives