Mental health records not in gun database

Status
Not open for further replies.

rick_reno

member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
3,027
All this proves to me is what I already knew - people in Texas have good common sense, and people in NY and Alabama don't.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10214838/

WASHINGTON - In Alabama, a man with a history of mental illness killed two police officers with a rifle he bought on Christmas Eve.

In suburban New York, a schizophrenic walked into a church during Mass and shot to death a priest and a parishioner.

In Texas, a woman taking anti-psychotic medication used a shotgun to kill herself.

Not one of their names was in a database that licensed gun dealers must check before making sales — even though federal law prohibits the mentally ill from purchasing guns.

Most states have privacy laws barring such information from being shared with law enforcement. Legislation pending in Congress that has bipartisan support seeks to get more of the disqualifying records in the database.

In addition to mandating the sharing of mental health records, the legislation would require that states improve their computerized record-keeping for felony records and domestic violence restraining orders and convictions, which also are supposed to bar people from purchasing guns.

Similar measures, opposed by some advocates for the mentally ill and gun-rights groups, did not pass Congress in 2002 and 2004.

The FBI, which maintains the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, has not taken a position on the bill, but the bureau is blunt about what adding names to its database would do.

“The availability of this information will save lives,” the FBI said in a recent report.

Many records incomplete
More than 53 million background checks for gun sales have been conducted since 1998, when the NICS replaced a five-day waiting period. More than 850,000 sales have been denied, the FBI reported; in most of those cases, the applicant had a criminal record.

Legislation sponsored by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., says millions of records are either missing or incomplete. “The computer is only as good as the information you put in it,” McCarthy said.

In the Alabama case, police say Farron Barksdale ambushed the officers as they arrived at the home of his mother in Athens, Ala., on Jan. 2, 2004. Barksdale had been committed involuntarily to mental hospitals on at least two occasions, authorities said.

Facing the death penalty, he has pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of mental disease and defect.

The shootings led Alabama lawmakers to share with the FBI the names of people who have been committed involuntarily to mental institutions. But just 20 other states provide NICS at least some names of people with serious mental illness, a disqualifier for gun purchases under federal law since 1968.

Shayla Stewart had been hospitalized five times in Texas, twice by court order. Yet Stewart was able to buy a shotgun at a Wal-Mart in 2003 because Texas considers mental health records confidential.

The same is true in New York, where Peter Troy was twice admitted to mental hospitals but bought a .22-caliber rifle that he used in the shootings inside a Long Island church in March 2002. Troy is serving consecutive life terms for the killings.

Legislation introduced
As a result of the church shootings, McCarthy and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., introduced legislation that year to close the gaps in the background check system. The bill would have required the states to give the FBI their records and provided $250 million in grants to cover their costs.

The bill passed the House without opposition but stalled in the Senate. In 2004, the measure again had the support of lawmakers who support gun rights, but it did not pass Congress.

McCarthy, whose husband was among six people shot to death on a Long Island Rail Road train in 1993, has introduced it again this year, but it has not yet been taken up by a House Judiciary subcommittee.

Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, a National Rifle Association board member, was a sponsor of the bill in the last Congress and continues to support it, spokesman Dan Whiting said. The NRA supports the concept, but it has not taken a position on McCarthy’s legislation, spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said.

‘Singling out people’
Michael Faenza, president and chief executive of the National Mental Health Association, said forcing states to share information on the mentally ill would violate patient privacy and contribute to the stigma they face.

“It’s just not fair. On the one hand, we want there to be very limited access to guns,” Faenza said. “But here you’re singling out people because of a medical condition and denying them rights held by everyone else.”

Several states have determined that they can flag residents who should not be allowed to buy a gun without compromising the privacy of mental health patients, said Matt Bennett, a spokesman for Americans for Gun Safety, which supports the bill.

Larry Pratt, executive director of the Gun Owners of America, said adding records to the database is the wrong idea. “Our idea of improving NICS is to abolish it,” Pratt said. “There is this continuing assumption that a gun buyer is guilty until proven innocent.”

The states that provide some or all mental health records are: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.
 
If we defend privacy rights the libs will say that we want crazy people to have guns. It's like the crazy Aunt that disagrees with everything you said at Thanksgiving Dinner because she just likes to bitch. :banghead:
 
I've been professionally diagnosed with a (mild, harmless to other people) personality disorder.

It would kind of suck if they passed some law that made it illegal for me to own guns.
 
I've read the text of the bill, but I still am not sure what they mean by "mental health records." What records would go into the database? Records of commitments, or other stuff like just seeing a therapist or going to marriage counseling?

There are tons of people who go to marriage counseling or therapy and aren't diagnosed with anything, and don't have a record. Would these people be flagged as as "mentally defective" on the NICS and prohibited from owning firearms for the rest of their lives?

I am sure the Democratic Party would love to pull such a stunt, and it certainly isn't beneath them to do so. They don't really care about privacy rights beyond it being a political talking point that they can use to earn themselves a few more votes.
 
Larry Pratt, executive director of the Gun Owners of America, said adding records to the database is the wrong idea. “Our idea of improving NICS is to abolish it,” Pratt said. “There is this continuing assumption that a gun buyer is guilty until proven innocent.”

"Mental health records" covers a great deal of ground: far too much ground for N.I.C.S. telephone operators to evaluate. Until this legislation includes definite standards and an appeal process, it's just another infringement of our Second Amendment civil rights.
 
Once again, the NRA is afraid to oppose a bill that has evil long-term consequences for gun owners.

The Anti-gunners love this bill because just like anyone can become a "domestic violence" perpetrator when THEY control the definition, so anyone can become "mentally ill" under the right definition. After all, there are those who already say that a facination with guns is a symptom of mental illness. It's a nice FIRST STEP. And NRA is backing it. Just like the NFA in 1934.

NRA doesn't think long-term. Never has, apparently never will.

The anti-gun American Psychiatric Assn. gets to decide WHO is mentally ill. Anyone remember the Soviet Union's use of mental hospitals to "treat" it's opponents.
 
Before anyone panics, I think this would only move commitment records into the NICS.

Federal law only prohibits people who have been committed against their will to a mental hospital from buying guns. If this is only for "purposes of complying with federal law," there is no reason whatsoever for any other records of any kind to be moved into the NCIS database.

We need to get some clear answers on what this bill does, and fast.
 
Oddest thing about this is the lack of consistent definitions for "mental illness". Chack out the differences between definitions in DSM versions.

In certain locations in history, critique of the "Fearless Leader" was considered a mental illness. Hmmm...
 
Yea, bad idea. Individuals freedoms are too important, in fact they're supposed to be untouchable, especially in this situation.

The fact that they can get away with using scare tactics like this is a sad commentary on how far downhill things have gone.
 
"Mental health records" covers a great deal of ground: far too much ground for N.I.C.S. telephone operators to evaluate. Until this legislation includes definite standards and an appeal process, it's just another infringement of our Second Amendment civil rights.

They also arent really segregated from your regular health records. To get one's "mental health records" you pretty much have to sift through their whole medical history. Which means the state would have access to the whole nine yards.
 
zzzzz

A persons health records are PRIVATE and should stay like that. It is bad enough the other crap that is public knowledge let alone Federal Knowledge with the passing of the Pathetic Patriot Act. A persons Civil Liberties should be first and foremost protected from and by a Democratic Govt. If Aunt Lilly buys a shotgun but happend to be Manic Deppresive and takes herself or a few others out. Well....it may sound ridiculous but unless she had a violent criminal behavior or was committed, then its only fate and thats something NO LAW will ever stop or control.

When your numbers up....your numbers up!
 
mental health records

they are confidential..the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders--fourth edition, is a categorical classification that divides mental disorders into types based on criteria sets with defining features. By using standard nomenclature to define disorders and providing precise coding instructions for diagnosis. It facilitates diagnosis, treatment and statistical analysis of mental disorders. it includes listings for every recognized category of mental illness. it's quite interesting read. (DSM-lV) it is published by the American Psychiatric Association. i'm not computer savy...maybe someone can post a link.:eek:
 
quote"They also arent really segregated from your regular health records. To get one's "mental health records" you pretty much have to sift through their whole medical history. Which means the state would have access to the whole nine yards".

yup..health records...not just mental health records but all health records.this has far too many implications for discrimintory practices as people will find a way to abuse the information gatherd no matter how good the intentions may be.

nothing like selling the information neither..which opens up a whole new can of worms.it has been done.
 
The good thing is mental health advocates are totally opposed to this bill, even if they hate guns.

This bill will die quietly like last year.
 
This of course...

is the reason I will never seek mental help or therapy no matter how badly I may feel I need it. Curing seasonal depression is not worth losing my ability to own firearms.
 
You let the Dems regain Congress and they will pass this.

Currently the Republican lead House has not plans to do so.

Hastert and Co are not dumb enough to bring gun control bills for a vote.
 
RavenVT100 said:
Before anyone panics, I think this would only move commitment records into the NICS.

That might be true NOW. This is the proverbial camels nose under the tent - get the nose in and in time they'll have the entire camel in the tent.

You let the Dems regain Congress and they will pass this.

Senator Larry Craig, the good Senator from where I live and a NRA Board Member SUPPORTS this crap. I don't think we have to worry about Democrats when the Republicans are just as happy to screw us.
 
kel said:
is the reason I will never seek mental help or therapy no matter how badly I may feel I need it. Curing seasonal depression is not worth losing my ability to own firearms.

Your health is important, though. Why not just pay cash and leave it at that? If one doctor isn't willing to practice 'off the record', then others should. There's nothing wrong about it, and everything right.

Also, seasonal depression is linked to light absorbtion, its even call SAD, seaonal affective disorder. You can treat yourself by installing more powerful indoor lights, like those 'true white light' types, and making sure you are exposed to them for at least 15 minutes. It's not hard to find literature on it, and it's the best place to start.

Of course, 300 years ago if you're living in a cave in northern Europe in December, it's probably a good thing to save your energy like that. Maybe it's not right to even call it a 'disorder', if it's just a survival trait.
 
Your health is important, though.
Apparently not important enough for the Democrats to care about you not having to choose between healthcare and enjoying your civil rights.

I wonder how the party plans to abuse privacy rights once universal healthcare is implemented?
 
What's the big deal regarding violating privacy, or any other civil right or...

What's the big deal regarding violating privacy, or any other civil rights?

It's just one more step toward socialism/communism in Amerika. It shouldn't be surprising. It's wrong, yes, but surprising? Come on. This would be the first law Billery would sign!

Doc2005
 
It's nothing new that mental health has individuals discriminated against. And it's nothing new that people with influence want people with power to use it against their enemies.

The scale is much larger, but that's to be expected.

"choose between healthcare and enjoying your civil rights."

With cash you can have both. And realisticly, the notion of individual liberty and freedom does stand out like a mountain in the prairies, historically speaking. It's only prudent to expect there to be counter-revolutionary forces pulling the balance back again. I don't know if this was the 2nd or 3rd of 4th or whatever incidence of a period of time in human history where freedom reigned, but the fact is that's changing now, and you have to act as well as complain. In a few decades it might be preferable not even to complain.

Sorry to rant, but I'm just saying I think one has to make the best of a bad situation, find ways to simply survive where once you could have thrived. Loopholes, find loopholes and exceptions, anything. The most surviveable animals are the ones that can adapt best.
 
Before anyone panics, I think this would only move commitment records into the NICS.
The thing is, most of the "incidents" that the news story cited as a reason for the law did NOT involve commitments. One person was merely taking a certain medication, IIRC.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top