Mental health records not in gun database

TheeBadOne

Moderator
Mental health records not in gun database

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.

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

Wonder what else there was to that quote that was omitted. Seems like they are trying to give a 'NUT' impression.

How can they give health info to the NICS check, when doctors offices are having to install sound masking systems to prevent the next person in line from hearing about someone's info?
 
It certainly seems to me that this legislation would violate HIPPA and/or FERPA, which would be competing national laws...then the courts will be involved to determine which law controls in given situations...what a mess (and what a boon for trial lawyers)!

Would this also provide a back door for other medical records to be used to decide whether one can purchase a firearm or not?

It all seems somewhat nightmarish to me, at least when carried to its (logically absurd) conclusion.
 
Do you want these records on a data base? if so you are going to discourage many people from seeking treatment for conditions like depression because of the risk of beaurocratic persecution.
 
Therapy

Yeah, what if I wanted to talk to a counselor for marriage advice or something? Then the next time I go to buy a gun, I can't? That doesn't seem right.
 
I can see some backdoor ramifications on this.job applicant screening is just one thing that comes to mind.supposedly, the privacy act was enacted to keep people from being discriminated against-seems everything thats ever been written for good intentions always end up doing just the opposite because people find ways to exploit the information and use it for their own personal amusement and gains.

on this spectrum, alot more policemen or firemen who have had to seek counseling from a tragic circumstance, will find themselves out of a job and unable to replace their income... because they will be deemed "medically unfit". they couldnt stomache the loss of a close family member or friend to a auto crash,killed in a senseless gang shooting or some other tragic circumstance, and required help.


the privacy act was passed for a reason,passing anything to the contrary will open up a can of worms.
 
RE: the counseling, here's a tip. (most pertinent to LEO & FIRE types).

Pay for the counseling out of your own pocket, not under your Agency Insurance.

If you pay for it under your Agency Ins, it's discoverable.

TBO
 
What's really interesting is that in California I have a State constitutional right to privacy.

Should Congress pass a law mandating "the sharing of mental health records" that would eliminate my State Constitutional Right.

Which totally violates the 11th amendment as well as several articles in the Constitution itself.

As for the last paragraph, I didn't know California was sharing patient data and don't believe that they do. I think that all the Feds get is a list of names but I could be wrong. Not that it's any help because if someone is on the list, they get blanket denied even if they're on the list incorrectly or their name is the same as some elses.

TBO, paying for counselling yourself instead of using your insurance to pay for it won't help. Litigation discovery WILL uncover it (all they have to do is ask "have you ever" and it's right there - unless you lie which is REALLY risky). Besides the Doc at the mental health facitilty has to report your status to the State database anyway because you're a patient and if you think no one looks at that.....

Private mental health counselors have some other system I believe but don't know the pertinant details of.
 
Pay for the counseling out of your own pocket, not under your Agency Insurance.
That may work for now, but it is easy for "The Government" to get around it - just pass a law to the effect that ANY and ALL outpatient counseling or treatment must be reported to the NICS/FBI/BATFEces with the person in question's name, address and social security number.:barf:
 
Do you want these records on a data base? if so you are going to discourage many people from seeking treatment for conditions like depression because of the risk of beaurocratic persecution.

Yep, exactly.

I can see maybe putting in records into NICS of IN-voluntary commitment to a mental hosptial, COUPLED WITH a post-commitment professional diagnosis of psychosis or schizophrenia (sp?). Or any court-adjudicated declaration of mental instability, where someone was properly served and had the opportunity to appear and rebut the accusation. But not much or anything else.
 
Just seeking and getting treatment should not be reported to anyone. For the military this has led a lot of folks who are career miliary to not get the help they need. It is viewed as a career killer. What about the LEOs and firefighters who are subject to PTSD simply due the nature of their job? Now if you have been Involutarily committed and it is a public record that is a bird of a different feather.

Under the intent of this if I suffer form depression or PTSD or a mental illness and am getting treatment and it is reported, I am unable to own or purchase firearms this is the same as saying I am guilty of a crime I have not committed. This was the theme of the movie The Monority Report. Showed that such things lend themselves to misuse as well.
 
My understanding was that the new Federal laws mandate ALL medical records into one government dbase and that would seem to make the above debate moot, Not?
 
Just seeking and getting treatment should not be reported to anyone.
Yup, that was the point I was making about paying for it out of pocket. If you're in an occupation where you may be sued (LEO/Fireman) they will pull up all "Psych" records (to make you look bad/out of control). Doesn't matter if it was marriage counseling, it'll come up as "Psych" stuff.

FYI
 
Back
Top