I wouldn't keep one precisely because of suicidal ideation, I don't trust myself. I'm pretty sure I couldn't but impulsivity is a wild card, here.

I know what you mean.

This is exactly what a relatively cursory hour or so of research on this matter revealed to me.

Some states have tighter restrictions, many just mirror the Federal Firearms Act of 1968 and the Brady Act.

I personally find the term mental defective extremely derogatory, but that was the terminology in use in 1968.

I strongly suspect in the current witch hunt atmosphere that very ugly things are coming up, and soon.

I don't support ownership in general except in limited circumstances, such as for hunting or recreational or competitive target sports. Hunting doesn't bother me, in fact it can be good, my neighborhood is overrun with deer, in fact a herd of about a dozen crossed the road ahead of me about five am this morning. No hunting here because of the suburban nature.

It seems grossly unfair to take a right away based on class membership - if the same proposal were made to restrict African American males between 18 and 35 , the class population statistically more likely to be involved in gun crimes either as perpetrators or victims, it would never fly. The outrage would be tremendous, rightfully so.

But we will be thrown under the bus, we will be pre-judged without due process, we will be lumped together in databases with sex offenders, common felons and drug dealers, and those databases will be open to improper access without adequate safeguards, IMHO.

And then, there is the question of how this information will be gathered. Will we be required to register with local, state, or federal law enforcement like sex offenders? Or worse, so will our medical records, health insurance records, and pharmacy records be required to be turned over, in violation of our cuurent privacy and HIPPA rights, and in violation of the trust we place in our our healthcare providers? Will we be required to go to the post office or appear before a local board to register, as I had to do in 1983 with Selective Service?

My primary concern is twofold:

"Mentally ill" is a HUGE catch phrase. Many categories of "mental illness" fall under short term episodes, as in
the several variations of "adjustment disorder".
And how do you decide who WILL continue to be severely depressed in 6 months?
Yet that label will be on file even if a person is fine with or without meds down the road.
Who changes the records to update any changes?

Secondly, THIS:
Formally commits a person involuntarily to a mental institution or asylum for mental defectiveness, mental illness, and other reasons, such as drug use.
First of all, no one is forced into mental institutions for drug use; state mental institutions are actually emptying out.
But, there ARE states, like Fla. where a person CAN be invol. committed on a 72 hour hold for mental illness or for drug use. ( local crisis centers are used for the holds)
Would THAT make someone ineligible for gun ownership, no matter how much effective treatment the person gets?

Drug use and /or convictions really would target a disproportionate number of non-whites.

It's really rare for someone to be committed for substance abuse, but theoretically could happen. Here in Michigan, chronic substance abuse is still one of the conditions that can get someone adjudicated a legally incapacitated individual or involuntarily committed.

as well as Mental Health clients, for up to 90 days at a time, more time following review of need.

The process goes like this:
usually at request of poice who pick up a disturbed person, a Mental Health person would be called out any time day or night
( we got paid per call at night)
to evaluate the person who had been taken to a free standing crisis center.
If the person appeared to by suicidal, or psychotic, ..."danger to self or others", the on call psychiatrist was consulted and could order a 72 hour hold, then evaluate the person the next day.
If, during that time, the person was deemed to be in need of treatment, a judge could order treatment for up to 90 days at a time, with reviews every 90 days.

In Alabama, this type of law applies only to Mental Health clients, not substance abusers.

I worked both in both inpatient and outpatient substance abuse treatment programs, in Fla. and Alabama, and almost all
substance abuse clients were by court order.

That would be my concern..much like getting your name on the No Fly List, where it is apparently impossible to get it removed.

That restraining orders do appear to come an go from the system--they represent 42,000 of the denials the system generated from 98 to 2012, but there are only 4100 active records for that prohibition currently in the system.

From reading at the FBI NICS, it appears that an appeal involves a written request with documentation.

or ruling by judges. The current system ensures due process and equal protection.

We need that system to be maintained--and part of that involves finding, and knowing the facts, and trying to influence the decision makers to NOT create the witch hunt.

I see nothing wrong with the present standards, implementation is one problem, the other is that many who need treatment are flying under the radar until something goes wrong.

I have a big problem with a mental illness database. How do you get on it and how so you get off? Won't this violate HIPPA? If someone acquires an illness, is it permanent? Would this do more to stigmatize mental illness? Is this a violation of ADA?

I have seen instances where women have been sent for court ordered mental evaluation over the weekend (72 hours) because they wanted a divorce.

My opinion, it reeks of fascism, a heavy handed unnecessary way to scapegoat a politically weak and unpopular group so the focus shifts away from guns and gun profits keep flowing in to manufacturers.

Last edited Fri Jan 11, 2013, 09:13 AM - Edit history (1)

mental illness or defect, or if you have been _involuntarily committed_ to a mental hospital. A restraining order can also get you on the list and a restraining order could be made for mental health reasons and could include restrictions to gun purchase and access, it may even order a person to surrender any weapons owned.

States can make additions that are more inclusive...one that comes up regularly is _involuntary_ treatment with drugs for a mental conditions. The website does have a table of the state rules. I don't know if an involuntary 72 hour detention and assessment is currently a criterion in any state. It currently is not in Wisconsin

The instant background checks use additional databases to the NICS, including a database of criminal history called the Interstate Identifier Index (aka the "Eye-3&quot . That database goes some distance to filling the holes in the NICS data, but an assessment of the NICS system a couple of years ago by the federal Office of Technological Assessment suggested that between 17 and 20 million records of felony convictions (about 1/3) get missed.

There is much concern that the ways in which mentally ill persons will be added is going to be changed to be more expansive. The NRA is pushing hard on this angle as it is consistent with their long held meme guns don't kill, people do. But in the past 48 hours, Gabby Giffords, Barbara Boxer, Ed Schultz, and Micheal Moore have also made statements about getting more mentally ill on the prohibited list (currently prohibitions for mental illness rank #2 at 22% of the database,)
The state attorney general of WI has come out in favor of more mentally ill being reported, and he is backed up by a very NRA friendly, pro-conceal carry tea-party legislature and Governor. Some changes here will undboutedly be directed at identifying Wayne LaPierre's 'lunatics and monsters among us'.

There seems little doubt that things will change soon, the season for change is upon us.

Many organizations have been promoting and waiting for a political climate in which they can push for greater regulation of guns in the US. The database was set up as part of the Brady Act, an act named for Reagan's press secretary shot in an attempt on Reagan's life. The Brady Foundation is a powerful voice for gun control in DC and across the nation. It is pushing for greater restrictions on gun ownership you can visit their website and read all about their efforts. They will be an important player in producing the language of any new regulation. The organization of lawyers discussed in this OP are also pushing model legislation in states and at the federal level. Their interest is in reducing gun violence, concerns for the mentally ill are for them secondary.
Suicide prevention organizations are also interested in the issue of gun violence. Gun suicides are twice as common as gun homicides in the US. Arguments that mentally ill aren't dangerous must be made in the face of 17,000 successful gun suicides each year.

Changes to NICS reporting requirements can be made at both the state and the federal level, because both have authority to regulate gun purchases. State legislatures are often more reactionary than Congress. The efforts for expanding reporting of the mentally ill into NICS database will need to be watched and as necessary opposed at both levels.

It -is- possible to have your right to buy a gun restored if you've been adjudicated to be prohibited for mental health reasons. The first step is going back to court to get the ruling reversed. Then you appeal your status within the NICS database. An information page for how to do that is on the FBI NICS information website. I't unclear how a person would find out they are on NICS unless they attempt to buy a weapon. It may be possible, but I haven't yet run across that information. Comments I have read about challenging denials encountered at the point of purchase indicate that the identifying number of the permit request must be included in a challenge of a denial, a fee, and a copy of your fingerprints is suggested.

Regarding stigma. The rhetoric on DU about gun permits, gun violence and the mentally ill has certainly been uninformed as well as often highly stigmatizing. It's hard to imagine that language in communities across the country will be any different whether they are on the street, in the media or in state houses.

It is not a violation of HIPPA to report names of persons considered dangerous to self or others. HIPPA specifically exempts privacy rights from sharing for those purposes. Nonetheless, compliance is uneven across the country because of interpretations of HIPPA and other state privacy laws. Some states have lower compliance rates than others. I'd have to look to see how ADA and privacy rights engage each other. I'm still in the early part of learning about this topic.

I did my best with my limited knowledge to address you questions.

I'm not a lawyer I'm a person with some graduate degrees and a serious personality disorder. That means I have no special education guiding interpretation of meanings in commentaries on legal documents related to this issue. Moreover, I know what I know only from what's on the web, I don't have access to LEXUS search engines or an awareness of important legal keywords that might this self-education process more effective.

People with TBI?
Football players with concussions?
Stroke victims?

Any brain damage will have a mental effect.

HIPPA allows dissemination to law enforcement not to every gun dealer and pawn shop in the country. Will this database be secure from a prospective employer or your next door neighbor?

My concern is not buying a gun it is being in a database that I have to try to buy a gun to see if I am there or get out of. These databases always get used for alternate purposes. It was not too long ago that it was against the law to ask for your SS number if not for SS purposes.

I have a relative who had to flee the state to avoid a commitment order obtained by her lawyer husband, because she spoke of divorce and property distribution. She would have ended up on this list.

Remember these are response to the way the reporting currently takes place.

I doubt that Gabby Giffords would be listed. The language in the law reflects usage that addresses language in previous law and court determinations...it also reflects decades old psychological terminology so it is arcain and not common speech, that leads to misunderstanding by persons who simply read it at face value.

Currently the determinations about mental "defects" are made by a review board or by a judge depending on where the case is considered. These determinations usually are not made until there is an intervening concern about danger to self or others.

That isn't to say brain injuries can't be important. Yesterday there was a story relating a football player's suicide to brain damage due to repeated blows to the head.

In the interest of safety to a patient's or the public safety HIPPA does NOT make patient information available to gun retailers.

I don't know how that idea emerged, but it isn't true. The NICS instant checks for gun purchases provides a statement of 'proceed' or 'denied'. No one knows if you were denied because you are an illegal alien, a dishonorably discharged former service member, a felon, an unlawful user of a controlled substance, or a person adjudicated to be prohibited for mental health reasons.

Frankly, I have concern about the security of NCIS information it is about the future more than the way it currently functions.

There is much pressure on government to liberalize information sharing between agencies and databases. This liberalization is actually necessary to make things like the NICS work effectively. Over time it is likely that information will become more and more available as lobbyists push lawmakers to make "reasonably available" information that is needed and useful to protect business interests and the public. Criminal background checks are now a regular part of the hiring process. While it varies by state, background checks for some jobs and even volunteer positions are required to go deeper into the data than others--for example in Wisconsin deeper checks are run on persons who will have contact with children, such as in daycare, recreation centers, and in teaching. It's not difficult to see an argument that says NICS should be part of these deep background checks because if a person is prohibited from owning a gun, they should probably be prohibited from working with children. We've certainly seen how sharing of personal credit information has spread from loan applications to employment and now even dating.

People certainly do make mistakes, intentional and otherwise, regarding mental health interventions. Whether it is malicious as in the case you mentioned, or whether it's more a consequence of the application of 'an excess of caution' at every step along the chain of events originating from a well intentioned concern, bad stuff happens. As it is, involuntary commitment and it's consequences can be appealed. It's pretty obvious when the police show up and place you in handcuffs and drop you off at a municipal or county inpatient center, and you know you should respond.

One of my concerns going into the future is that IF some of the proposed data snooping comes to pass, it may not be possible to know you are in the NICS unless you go to purchase a firearms product. If two-way information sharing is the solution to the information gaps in the NICS database that leaking information on mental illness could be a bad thing.

My nightmare scenario is speculative and requires a series of things to happen that currently don't happen, these things MAY NEVER HAPPEN, but it goes something like this...a woman gets put on an anti-depressant for post-partem depression...a snooping software reports use of an anti-psychotic med to NICS. Because state budgets are tight and employees few...the database reporting to NICS has never been updated to reflect that the depression was transient and the drug use stopped after several months; it still flags her name. Four years later the woman applies for a job as a kindergarten teacher. She fails a background check because the snooping in her medical records years before secretly placed her name on the NICS because she took "a substance indicative of depression" which is a common feature of gun suicides. That data has become linked for use in more general background checks used to keep our children safe in their schools. And worst of all, she may feel she just wasn't competitive for the job. She may never know it was an Orwellian invention that wrongly kept her out of the job. Again, THIS IS A SPECULATIVE WORST CASE intended to show why this data must be handled with care.

the County Judge presides over guardianships and commitments. This is a political administrative position with no legal training or qualifications required. I am aware of abuses.

Lets consider another approach. Treat guns like airplanes. Require an initial and annual proficiency check and an annual medical physical. Leave NICS to felons. Though I feel that 'felons" like "Mental illness" is too broad a category.

It is almost impossible to get anything expunged from medical records.

There are sure a lot of links to "medical background check" on Google. I might try one some day and see what shows.

I have no doubt that abuses as well as mistakes can occur.

Adjudications aren't part of the medical record. They are decisions of the court, they are reversible. People have appealed to have their right to buy firearms returned.

I can only find vague statements about strengthening the public MH system and funding increases, and a vague reference to tighter background checks involving MI.

But, no specifics.

I personally feel the powers that be would have no problem trashing all kinds of our rights, in a heartbeat. BOTH sides, right and left. Not just gun rights, but privacy, due process, and equal protection.

Open season on us. Paranoid? Maybe, maybe not.

Last edited Fri Jan 11, 2013, 09:16 PM - Edit history (3)

The states also can make changes in their prohibitions for gun ownership and their reporting requirements

DC isn't the only place that will be making policy.

Here in Wisconisn, our Atty General endorsed the Wayne LaPierre positions on finding the lunatics and monsters among us almost as soon as it was stated. As WI has a tea-party government, I expect changes proposed here that are going to look pretty far right.

I personally think that the folks in DC are pretty lazy. They are likely to adopt language from model legislation of groups that seek more gun control...The Smart Gun laws group has produced some of this stuff, the Brady Foundation has produced some of it. I can't say, but I'd expect that groups interested in suicide prevention are also interested and have models of legislation they would like to see inacted.

Searches should probably made to identify such groups and to understand their proposals with respect to the mentally ill. I haven't pursued that.

Thanks for that.