State Trooper Can Carry a Gun, Just NOT OFF DUTY (due to mental issues)

So I was reading one of the Blogs I read from time to time and I saw this story.

Basically the State Trooper had some suicidal tendencies and got himself committed as a result.

Seven years ago the good Trooper tried repeatedly to kill himself by overdosing with drugs. Eventually he was involuntarily committed to a mental health institute for treatment. This all happened in 2006 while he was employed by the Pennsylvania State Police.

On December 24th, a Commonwealth Superior Court ruled that Keyes would not have his right to own firearms reinstated and that this was not a violation of his 2nd Amendment rights. The judge found that banning the mentally defective from possessing firearms only applies to an “extremely small” class of citizens and has a solid public safety basis.

Now get this!!!

Surprisingly, the judge also found that Keyes could remain employed as a State Trooper and carry a firearm while acting in such a capacity because he would be under the supervision and observation of superior officers and his fellow Troopers. The judge went on to say, “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 supervisors could then restrict his access to state police firearms”.

I am still slack jawed over this. Most everyone knows that a state trooper is a one man show in his own car most of the time. As an individual he cannot be trusted with a firearm but in an official capacity its cool?

SERIOUSLY????

Those of you here that have read my post may know my 2nd Amendment views on the issue. Shall not be infringed... no interpretation needed. However that is not how the rest of the elected officials and judges have concluded.

This story would only be better if it had happen in CA...

What say you?

reply to post by SWCCFAN


I saw the article for this yesterday.

S&F for posting it!

I really am so speechless on this, for the first time in a Looooooong time, I really don't know what to say......

Knee-jerk reaction is "Whaaaa??"

Logically though, the trooper at no time used his gun for the purpose of hurting himself or others.

It was 7 years ago, so the unanswered question is "has there been any report of trouble since?" Depression and suicidal tendencies can be linked to a specific traumatic event rather than a long term illness. Honestly, there isn't enough information to second guess the judge.

This is insane. And I mean that at the most literal iteration of the term possible. This guy has had a mental breakdown, was committed, and yet is allowed to run around armed? Suspending him may not be the best thing to do, but put him behind a desk without his firearm.

Common sense is something our so called modern society lacks. And one reason I detest the world we live in. When a sane person is scrutinized for purchasing a firearm while a committed person with mental instabilities is allowed to openly carry a firearm and be placed in precarious situations is the day we should truly understand that something has to be done. I don't know what, if I did I'd share. But something.

Would someone please pass me the duct tape? This is one of those stories that make me think my head is going to explode!

How do members of the BlackRobe tribe get themselves into such positions? It is simply indecent.
From what I can gather from reading the ruling the judge believes that the trooper's mental health care has remedied the problems that caused him to be committed and that he is competent to carry out his professional duties as a trooper but can't be trusted to be mentally stable outside his professional capacity.

I want to see a list of medications/chemicals the ruling judge was on when he made that ruling....recent history of head trauma...onset of dementia?

reply to post by Mountainmeg


If you look into the history of every mass murderer you will most likely find a history of mental issues. This is how the Feds have justified taking away the right to own and possess firearms its federal law. In the law's eyes you are now proven to be a threat to public safety. Which is also why most states prohibit possession of firearms if domestic violence has ever been an issue.

It is the one area once you screw up it's nearly impossible to get your right back.

rather convenient for the fellow officers he works with.....could it be they just need a scape goat when something goes horribly wrong?

I wonder if the judge can be held accountable if he does kill someone in the line of duty. It is a huge liability issue for the state.