Few States Following Mental Health Gun Law

[right2bfree]

Source: Associated Press

Few States Following Mental Health Gun Law
Ariz. shooting suspect never deemed mentally ill

Updated: Thursday, 17 Feb 2011, 2:10 PM MST
Published : Thursday, 17 Feb 2011, 2:09 PM MST

By GREG BLUESTEIN
Associated Press

ATLANTA - More than half the states are not complying with a post-Virginia Tech law that requires them to share the names of mentally ill people with the national background-check system to prevent them from buying guns, an Associated Press review has found.

The deadline for complying with the 3-year-old law was last month. But nine states haven't supplied any names to the database. 17 others have sent in fewer than 25, meaning gun dealers around the U.S. could be running names of would-be buyers against a woefully incomplete list.

Officials blame privacy laws, antiquated record-keeping and a severe lack of funding for the gap the AP found through public records requests.Eleven states have provided more than 1,000 records apiece to the federal database, yet gun-control groups have estimated more than 1 million files are missing nationwide.

"If the mental health records are not current from our sister states, the quality of our background check is going to be compromised," said Sean Byrne, acting commissioner of the Division of Criminal Justice Services in New York, a state that has submitted more than 100,000 records.



Read more: http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/health/few-states-following-mental-health-gun-law-apx-02172011

[Kingofalldems]

1. Uh oh

:popcorn:

[TheCowsCameHome]

2. easy on the butter, please

:popcorn:

[skoalyman]

16. hold the salt

:popcorn:

[furgee]

3. And it looks like Illinois is going to pass its first conceal carry bill.

[slackmaster]

4. In before the "We need more laws" crowd

:argh:

[AtheistCrusader]

5. Seems like it ought to be an easy fix.

Federal pre-emption, screw your state privacy law.

[former9thward]

6. Those are federal privacy laws.

[AtheistCrusader]

7. Then are the states already properly reporting, breaking federal privacy laws?

[former9thward]

8. Who knows?

Some states feel it is proper to report and some feel it is not proper. If you are a state health department employee are you going to take a chance you are in violation of the law by reporting? And face a suit by the individual or being fired by your superiors because they certainly won't back you up.

To add to the mix many states have privacy laws that go beyond the federal HIPAA rule and impose further conditions. Many employees don't understand all these laws or just don't want to try and interpret the laws especially if they conflict.

[right2bfree]

9. When you commit a felony or are admitted to a mental health institution, it goes without saying ..

..that you are giving up some of your rights. Therefore no crime has been committed by the
states who report who has been in a mental institution, in the purpose of public safety.

Would you really want people who have confirmed major mental illnesses, to obtain firearms legally?

[AtheistCrusader]

13. How did you read that out of what I asked?

I'm trying to understand why privacy laws might inhibit a state from reporting this information to NICS. Privacy laws were offered as a reason in the article. Either it is in reference to federal privacy laws, which apply to all states equally (meaning some states are either lying about being constrained, or other states are violating those privacy laws by reporting it) or there are state privacy laws that exceed the federal requirements, and block the law requiring states to report this info.

In which case, the federal government has supremacy and these states should be reporting.


Either way, they should be reporting this data, so we CAN block people adjudicated mentally unstable from obtaining firearms.

[provis99]

15. mentally ill people are LESS likely to commit crimes.

There is no justification for keeping guns out of the hands of mentally ill people. Mentally ill would include, for example, first responders who have checked in for a 2-3 day stay in the hospital for stress. Does that mean they should never have a gun again?

[slackmaster]

18. Mentally ill people in general are NOT prohibited from buying, owning, or possessing firearms

Read up on the law. The code is here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000922----000-.html

Search for the word "adjudicated".

[right2bfree]

19. They should have to go before a judge to determine if its safe to let them own a gun, yes. nt

[hack89]

10. Cost and antiquated computer systems are also a big issue.

if the choice came down to funding this or education/health care/social services, which would you pick?

[right2bfree]

11. By definition, a person who has been detained in a mental institution doesn't have the same..

..privacy rights as a person with normal behavior, and who is not a potential threat
to society, if they go down to a gun store, or a gun-show, and buy a firearm legally.

No one who is sane wants mentally unfit people who are disbarred from having access or
ownership to firearms to be able to buy a gun legally in a gun store against federal laws.

[AtheistCrusader]

14. And you responded to me with this, why?

[Atypical Liberal]

12. Mental health always gets the shaft

Hell, we can't get our state and federal governments to get standard health care issues squared away. Is anyone surprised that mental health issues are a problem?

[melm00se]

17. this is a balancing act

a person has a right to privacy especially when it comes to their medical history. it normally takes the consent of the patient (and the case can be made that a mentally ill person can not grant consent) or a court order to breach doctor patient confidentiality. A law cannot and should not be able to breach that wall.

OTOH society has the right/obligation to protect the public from a mentally ill person attempting to acquire a firearm.

there is the added bonus of what can happen with this data and how can it be used once it is in the possession of a government agency.

how much and what kind of information are you willing to have residing in a government data bank? and before you say "they already have plenty" and/or "there are safe guards"; remember the passport issue leading up to the 2008 election?

[Posteritatis]

20. Yay, more treating "mentally ill" as a single inherently threatening monolith! (nt)

[boppers]

21. See #18.

It's not treated as a monolithic group in the law.

The media articles about it, OTOH, may vary.

[Posteritatis]

22. I'm talking more about posters around here. (nt)

[Imagevision]

23. This should be every tee-baggers joy!

[One of Many]

24. Adjudicated

Adjudicated is the key word here. You have to be found by a court to be mentally ill, a danger to yourself, subnormal intelligence etc.

Note to be committed, this is a legal process that must go through a court.

Of course, you can sign a waiver to such a court hearing and it would have the same effect.

Evaluation, such as the California "5150" does not earn you a spot in the NCIC unless they pursue formal proceedings after that, again through a court. Many states do have laws that prohibit someone from owning a gun for 5 years after a "5150" type of event though.

The states maintain their own appeals process for those who wish to seek remedy, again in court.

(not a lawyer)


======================================

http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/nics/final_act_analysis_2008-3-8.pdf

======================================

Mental Illness Prohibition

Q: Federal law prohibits people who are dangerously mentally ill from purchasing or possessing a gun. Does the NICS Act change who is covered by this prohibition?

A: No. The NICS Act does not change the prohibition enacted in 1968 that bars people who are dangerously mentally ill from purchasing or possessing a gun. Under federal law, people may not buy or possess a gun if they are “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to any mental institution.” ATF regulations define “adjudicated as a mental defective” as a:
determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease: (1) Is a danger to himself or others; or (2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.

These regulations have not been changed by the NICS Act. Note that merely seeking or receiving treatment for mental illness is not sufficient to bring someone within this prohibited class.
The NICS Act does provide that persons who are entered into NICS because of this mental illness prohibition may seek “relief from disabilities” by petitioning that their names be removed from NICS if they no longer suffer from the mental health condition that originally barred them from buying or possessing guns.

======================================