AG Mukasey: FBI Gun Ban List Doubles

[Davo]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...AR2007112901238.html?nav=rss_email/components

Mukasey: FBI Gun Ban List Doubles

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 29, 2007; 12:50 PM

Since the Virginia Tech shootings last spring, nearly 220,000 names have been added to an FBI list of people prohibited from buying guns because of mental health problems, the Justice Department announced today.

The disclosure, from the prepared text for a speech this afternoon by Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey, underscores the size of the background check loophole that allowed Seung Hui Cho to purchase the handguns he used to kill 32 people and himself at Virginia Tech in April.

A state court had found Cho dangerously mentally ill, but the information was not provided to the FBI database checked by the gun dealers who sold him the weapons.
The Justice Department said today that the FBI's Mental Defective File has ballooned from 175,000 names in June to nearly 400,000. The names are included as a subset of the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS.

The vast majority of the new individuals were identified by California, which provided more than 200,000 names to the FBI in October, the Justice Department said. Ohio provided more than 7,000 new names, while the number of states reporting mental health data to the FBI grew from 22 to 28.


"Instant background checks are essential to keeping guns out of the wrong hands, while still protecting the privacy of our citizens," Mukasey says in prepared remarks released by the Justice Department before his appearance at a conference of state attorneys general in Utah. "But as we learned in the tragedy at Virginia Tech, the checks must be accurate and complete to be effective. We're making progress, and I hope that even more states will submit this information."

Federal law prohibits gun sales to people judged to be "mentally defective," but enforcement of the requirement has been haphazard. The Virginia Tech shooting has prompted a push by federal lawmakers and many states to improve monitoring of those covered by the ban. The House has overwhelmingly approved legislation that would encourage states to submit timely background check data to the FBI, but the measure has stalled in the Senate.

In Virginia, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) tightened a loophole in April by ordering state agencies to block gun sales to those involuntarily committed for inpatient or outpatient mental health treatment. Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) also issued a new gun purchase regulation that requires buyers to sign a waiver that releases mental health records to state police.

Im just curious about who defines "mentally defective". Is it legal for a state to demand a waiver of health records in order to purchase a firearm?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well, at least it is a good thing we didn't compromise on our principals and get something useful in return - like a way to get off the list (H.R. 2640).

 

[SomeKid]

BR,

You don't honestly think that provision would be any use? The Democrats would just de-fund the new program the way they de-funded the old one. All we would have gotten from compromising our principles, is compromised principles.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Good point, SomeKid.

Why vote against anti-gun candidates. They're all the same.

No point in joining the NRA. It'll sell us out.

Doesn't pay to resist a home invasion. The bad guys always win.

Waste of time to fight a traffic ticket. The courts are rigged.

Not worth cleaning the gun. It's going to get dirty again anyway.

No point in going into the hat business. Babies would be born without heads.

Might as well quit trying. Nothing is ever going to work anyway.

Not good for anyone else to try either. No use.

 

[SomeKid]

RH,

You must have a very good imagination to extrapolate all that from my criticism of one bill. The Democrats could use a man like you who can create things like that out of nothing on the SCOTUS.

 

[PennsyPlinker]

Am I the only one who finds the number of alleged nuts in California somewhat ironic?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

You don't honestly think that provision would be any use?

Yes, I do think it would be of use.

The Democrats would just de-fund the new program the way they de-funded the old one.

That is why H.R. 2640 was written so that the states administer the relief program (not Congress) and you can't get the extra funding for NICS unless you have a relief program.

 

[45Badger]

The Justice Department said today that the FBI's Mental Defective File has ballooned from 175,000 names in June to nearly 400,000. The names are included as a subset of the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS.

The vast majority of the new individuals were identified by California, which provided more than 200,000 names to the FBI in October, the Justice Department said. Ohio provided more than 7,000 new names, while the number of states reporting mental health data to the FBI grew from 22 to 28.

Am I the only one who finds the number of alleged nuts in California somewhat ironic?

Ironic? That is freakin' hysterical in my book!!!!!!!!

On the other hand, Ohio is "credited" for giving us these last few years of Dubya.

"Mental Defective" cuts both ways

 

[Phil Lee]

BR & RH were selling HR2640 a few months back when the mantra was no new people would be disqualified -- they were already disqualified. Well, we knew that wasn't true and these additions to the disqualified list prove it.

Now, if we'd passed HR2640, it wouldn't be just California, Virginia and Ohio and Maryland adding names, it would be every state. And we wouldn't be having just 28 states now, but all 50.

All, for the illusion of an appeal process.

There is an old saying that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is likely a duck. So, the walk and quacking is all about passing a bill to deny Americans who have broken no law their right to arms -- if they had seriously broken the law, they could be disqualified without HR2640.

All this walking and quacking is about supporting the passage of a gun control law. In particular this walking and quacking is also about supporting a gun control law that allows people to be disqualified without trial by jury and not for what they've have done, but what they may do as predicted by other kinds of quacks. In some cases, this walking and quacking is to support laws that allow people to be disqualified by only the actions of a few quacks.

You know, the Brady bunch does that sort of walking and quacking. Put an NRA hat on the walker-quacker, it still looks and sounds Brady to me.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

BR & RH were selling HR2640 a few months back when the mantra was no new people would be disqualified -- they were already disqualified. Well, we knew that wasn't true and these additions to the disqualified list prove it.

If the people who were added to this list had been caught with a firearm, they could have been charged under 922(g) whether they were on the NICS list or not. So yes, they were already disqualified. The only difference is now they can't buy firearms from FFLs despite being disqualified. Some people might even consider not being allowed to purchase a ticket for Club Fed as a good thing.

 

[SomeKid]

Bart, where did you read that it would be state administered? When I checked on it, it had a different federal agency doing the check.

Even if a state is doing it, Democrats are notorious for silently modifying these types of things. I do not see it as a gain.

Even then, there are numerous other flaws. I am still against this piece of legislation, it stinks to me.

 

[esq_stu]

Am I the only one who finds the number of alleged nuts in California somewhat ironic?

I'm waiting for Ahhnold to propose putting Prozac in the water supply.

 

[Novus Collectus]

Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) also issued a new gun purchase regulation that requires buyers to sign a waiver that releases mental health records to state police.

Im just curious about who defines "mentally defective". Is it legal for a state to demand a waiver of health records in order to purchase a firearm?

I can only speak for MD.
First of all, the TefLep (M. O'Malley) may have overstepped his legal authroity ordering the waiver to be signed by all regulated gun purchasers.
Second, the release form is not for all firearms and is only for guns MD regulates (e.g. handguns and some semi auto long guns) and not for most rifles or shotguns.
Third, MD has a definition for "probibitted persons" that is different than the federal definition of "mental defective" (e.g. someone court ordered to 30 or more days to a "facility", a "facility" is defined in MD law too)

MD law is pretty clear as to what is a "prohibitted person", but judging by O'Malley's furvently gun prohibitionist father in law (former attorney general) and the way he acted, we are suspect here that they will go beyond the law's scope and deny people willy nilly making them sue for their rights back.

 

[Robert Hairless]

RH,

You must have a very good imagination to extrapolate all that from my criticism of one bill. The Democrats could use a man like you who can create things like that out of nothing on the SCOTUS.

Thank you, SomeKid.

I truly appreciate the compliment but I'm rather busy right now and couldn't undertake the additional work, especially since it involves the kind of thinking anyone does who is rational. Firearms ownership does not require paranoia or other forms of irrationality. They are not even beneficial or prudent and tend to be self destructive.

When you are afraid to take reasonable steps forward because you fear that they will lead you into dark, twisty places controlled by Democrats who might devour you, your fears do not signal that there's anything wrong with Bart Roberts or me.

It's a pity you don't see that it's irrational to complain that the foreseeable has taken place and to defend your refusal to try to avert it because you feared that the demons might do it anyway.

And because I've waited years for that door you just opened ....

I'm reminded of the story about some kid who was overpowered by puberty. Everything he saw stimulated his libido. So his parents took him to a psychologist who gave him the battery of Rorschach inkblot tests as part of the diagnostic process. Much to the psychologist's discomfort each blot stimulated that kid most powerfully and obviously.

The psychologist was astonished by the kid's vivid descriptions of what he saw in the ink blots until, at the end, the doctor could not restrain himself: "You have the filthiest mind I have ever encountered," he exclaimed.

"Me? Me?" said the kid. "You're the guy who showed me all those dirty pictures!"

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Bart, where did you read that it would be state administered? When I checked on it, it had a different federal agency doing the check.

A federal agency does the NICS check; but the relief program is run by the state, so it cannot be defunded by Congress. If the state stops having a relief program for whatever reason, then they also lose the enhanced funding for NICS - so you are back to status quo.

I read it in H.R. 2640, specifically Section 105:

SEC. 105. RELIEF FROM DISABILITIES PROGRAM REQUIRED AS CONDITION FOR PARTICIPATION IN GRANT PROGRAMS.

(a) Program Described- A relief from disabilities program is implemented by a State in accordance with this section if the program--

Phil Lee and I had a long, in-depth discussion of this in another H.R. 2640 thread. He presents the opposing side to this very well and I argue for it. You might search for that and give it a read.

 

[ilbob]

It seems to me that the people that have been added to the NICS list are already prohibited from purchasing firearms already, they just aren't on the NICS list.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Good point as usual, ilbob.

 

[SomeKid]

RH,

When you are afraid to take reasonable steps forward

That is the thing, when I checked into this bill, I saw nothing that made me want to see it as a step forward. Even when the NRA sent out its mass mailing supporting it, the bill still just plain looks bad to me, based on what I know of it.

BR,

Time permitting, I will look it up. I won't say it will happen soon though, heres to final exams...

 

[Elza]

esq_stu: I'm waiting for Ahhnold to propose putting Prozac in the water supply.

He already did. That is why the number is only 200,000.

 

[Henry Bowman]

I simply hope that the same list of "Mental Defectives" are being added to the list of people who are not allowed to vote so that they will be denied by the Instant Voter Check.

 

[antsi]

BR & RH were selling HR2640 a few months back when the mantra was no new people would be disqualified -- they were already disqualified. Well, we knew that wasn't true and these additions to the disqualified list prove it.

You're equivocating here.

If the people were adjudicated mentally defective, then they were already legally disqualified, and it would have been illegal for them to purchase firearms. The only thing that has changed is that now they have been listed as disqualified.

All these additions to the list prove is that there were a lot of disqualified people who weren't on the disqualified list, who now are on the disqualified list.

You can disagree with this bill. You can disagree with the idea of disqualifying people who have been adjudicated mentally defective from buying firearms. Many reasonable people do disagree with these things. Personally I can see some points on both sides of the debate. However, in this as in any other debate, misrepresenting events and positions does not contribute to reasonable intelligent discourse.

 

[Robert Hairless]

That is the thing, when I checked into this bill, I saw nothing that made me want to see it as a step forward. Even when the NRA sent out its mass mailing supporting it, the bill still just plain looks bad to me, based on what I know of it.

Fair enough, Somekid. You made a decision based on what you knew and believed, and your decision was not to support the bill.

But surely you also knew of the Virginia Tech shooting earlier this year by a madman who was not caught by the present NICS system, and you also must have known of the strong pressure to prevent other madmen from slipping through NICS too.

Since you read the NICS revision bill you decided that it would be better not to support it even under those circumstances and even though it included provision for people to appeal being placed on the prohibited list.

You therefore got what you wanted: the status quo. So don't complain that the prohibited list has more than doubled and there is no way for anyone on that list to appeal their inclusion. And don't complain as it continues to grow and there will still be no way to appeal.

Chalk up this situation as a defeat for the NRA and a victory by Gun Owners of America, Dr. No (Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma), and gun owners who think as you do. All of you deserve credit for the situation. Don't be modest. Take a bow.

Those of us who warned about what would happen if NICS weren't revised fast didn't need to "have a very good imagination to extrapolate all that," only ordinary intelligence and the ability to see beyond our noses.

What you "must have a very good imagination" to believe is that time will stand still, that your fantasies are reality, that steadfast refusal to bargain accomplishes any good, or that there is even the slightest chance that NICS can or will be repealed in the foreseeable future.

 

[PTK]

The vast majority of the new individuals were identified by California, which provided more than 200,000 names to the FBI in October

Wow.

 

[351 WINCHESTER]

So If a vietnam veteran who suffers from pts cannot buy a gun does that also mean he cannot keep his gun collection too? Is the FBI or BATF going to go thru and re check the background checks?

 

[American By Blood]

Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) also issued a new gun purchase regulation that requires buyers to sign a waiver that releases mental health records to state police.

Maybe I'm just totally in the dark here, but what does this even accomplish?

I understand that records are kept of all court proceedings and thus a record exists for any hearing wherein a person was committed to an institution or judged too mentally feeble to manage their own affairs.

But is O'Malley demanding access to records of private treatment? And if so, where would the MSP go to obtain such records? Wouldn't a purchaser have to include the name of his or her shrink to make this part of the check even a remote possibility?