Something that really bugs me with the talk of strengthening background checks

R

riffraff

New member
There's lots of talk lately about making agencies accountable for reporting mental health, military, and criminal records such that they make it into NICS.

There's also lots of talk about enforcing fraudulent statements from "try and buy" NICS denials, ie pressing charges, and retrieving guns if they were the result of a default proceed later turned into a deny.

What failed somewhere along the line in 2017 though was a bill (or some sort of proposal anyway, not sure I cannot seem to find where it's published now - please post link if you know what I'm talking about) that simply made it so the FBI was held accountable to answer for NICS denials, ie made it so they had to send a letter describing the reason, forced appeals to be completed within a reasonable period of time, and allowed such appeals to be brought to a judge at any federal court (ie one close to you).. Other than that the FBI obviously would rather not be held more accountable for mistakes, seemed like a very "common sense" idea versus the terrible NICS appeal process in place today where the FBI has no accountability.

Probably as often as the background check system fails and allows "bad guys" to get guns, someone else is denied based on mistaken identity or incorrectly evaluated (ie minor, not prohibiting) criminal records. Imagine what happens when you then start adding mental health information to the system - how many additional points of confusion could result.
 
Out of 1,923 unlawful possession cases investigated by ATF in 2010, about 26.5% were dropped because they weren’t actually prohibited people. Out of 4,184 cases declined by ATF, 11.5% of those were declined because they weren’t prohibited people (Source: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf)

If we are seeing those kinds of error rates that late in the process, I’d say you have a valid concern about erroneous denials.
 
I
’m worried voluntary mental hospital admissions could count at some point
Click to expand...
It does count. If you admit yourself then get released and do not admit it on the 4473 you just lied and broke the law.
 
Oh it happens - the appeals process is usually backed up for 6 months or more, I cannot imagine very many people who are legitimately barred from firearms ownership are willing to bring attention to the fact they lied and tried to by a gun by filing an appeal and sending in their fingerprints :). Most of those appeals are probably errors. Scary.

I wish I could find a link to the bill from last year and/or articles about it. Maybe someone else will.. There definitely was something in the works. Actually with of all the government crap that goes on that one didn't seem inflammatory to any party, was simply enforcing a reasonable appeals process.

Only makes sense to attach that sort of thing to existing bills aimed to fix NICS - make the system work to enforce existing laws and policies OK great, but then while it's being revamped fix the damn appeals process too.

There are people out there spending tens of thousands of dollars on legal fees to bring the FBI to court and they win, but it really shouldn't come to that; not to mention probably takes years.
 
There are gaps that do need closed. I.e., the church shooter with military conviction for domestic should not of been able to buy a gun in the manner he did.

Mental health is a trickier subject. I am only going to say that serious trauma to the head should be reviewed by professionals. I had a neighbor once, nice older guy, then a major motorcycle crash, severe head truama, long time in a coma. Memory loss led to paranoia which has led to anger issues.
I've moved since, thankfully. Sitting with your back to a window that looks out on a gun toting angry man with mental misfires ain't relaxing.

But the bottom line, if you plan on mass murder, there are many options to skip the bgc.
Gun laws only effect the law abiding.
 
Don P said:
I’m worried voluntary mental hospital admissions could count at some point
Click to expand...
It does count. If you admit yourself then get released and do not admit it on the 4473 you just lied and broke the law.
Click to expand...
Actually, no, voluntary admissions don't count. The instructions for the relevant question (11.f) on the Form 4473 specifically exclude voluntary commitments:
Question 11.f.
...
Committed to a Mental Institution:
A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term
includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term includes commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution.
(my emphasis)​
 
Do have to wonder why forum asks if you use illegal drugs. If onesalready using an illicit substance I doubt they’d be honest enough to admit it anymore than walking into police station and telling the police they just did a speed ball.
 
I wonder if they could charge you if you lied.. I mean seems like it would violate your 5a right to not self incriminate.

Or is that just work if you say nothing at all?

I think they put the questions there as traps as pretty much all of them at the bottom will get you denied there is no point processing it if the answer is YES.
 
I'm worried about the vague discussion of "mental health" First off what exactly constitutes mental health? Is there some court system with an appeals process for these mental health decisions or is it some bureaucrat? Is my duty to show mental health a positive duty where I have to "prove" I am mentally healthy or a negative duty where dis-qualification is the duty of someone else and who? Secondly reporting likely violates HIPAA laws. To make it not just a legal issue reporting likely violates professional standards of confidentiality. IF you were to get it all sorted out, or even seem like it may be sorted out, you would discourage people from seeking professional help due to stigmatization.

This mental health rallying cry sounds good. Its not simple.
 
To make it not just a legal issue reporting likely violates professional standards of confidentiality. IF you were to get it all sorted out, or even seem like it may be sorted out, you would discourage people from seeking professional help due to stigmatization.
Click to expand...
One of the reasons for the voluntary exemptions is just that... to not stigmatize those who wish to responsibly seek care.

-- But --

The legal duty to warn when "...patients may pose a danger to themselves or others...." is written into the law, and should be part of the NICS system
See here: http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/mental-health-professionals-duty-to-warn.aspx
 
Mehavey its been awhile since my classes on the matter (I went into industrial psychology) but from what I recall that duty to warn required a very credible and specific threat. It did not cover vague threats or statements "I sometimes feel like killing someone" that may be indicative of a general mental disorder or a general threat.
 
Both sides want scapegoats. music, movies, games ect. Mental health is one too. Truth is most people with mental illness are more likely to be victims of gun violence than commit it. Certain conditions warranting uncontrolled psychosis I can understand but those are the rare extremes. Depression and anxiety you’re still in control of your actions and if you harm others that’s your own moral compass. The same people who claim they want to protect minorities and the ones targeted most in society also want to disarm them, ironic.
 
The emphasis on mental health is from some gun organizations who want to shift the blame from the guns per se. There was a small push to blame the autism spectrum after one incident.

Antigun folks want to declare as many people as they can to be unfit to have guns.

Really crappy political agendas from both sides.
 
Many with autism and aspergers are just socially awkward and not violent. It depends on the individual case. I expected better from manufacturers and “supporters” of second amendment. Really want people to care more about truth and what’s right than sucking up to collective ideologies that ironically make their ideology look worse.
 
CoffeeShooter I’m worried voluntary mental hospital admissions could count at some point.
Click to expand...
It would require a change in Federal law.



Don P It does count. If you admit yourself then get released and do not admit it on the 4473 you just lied and broke the law.
Click to expand...
Never actually read those questions on the Form 4473 have ya?:rolleyes:


Bluecthomas Gun laws only effect the law abiding.
Click to expand...
This.



CoffeeShooter Do have to wonder why forum asks if you use illegal drugs. If onesalready using an illicit substance I doubt they’d be honest enough to admit it anymore than walking into police station and telling the police they just did a speed ball.
Click to expand...
All those questions on the Form 4473 are the prohibitions from possessing a firearm. While it may seem silly or obvious, the reason for those questions is it allows a criminal charge for lying. If you are a felon, a user of illegal drugs, etc and you lie on the 4473, ATF can charge you with a violation of Federal law.


JoeSixpack I wonder if they could charge you if you lied.. I mean seems like it would violate your 5a right to not self incriminate.
Click to expand...
They can and do. See US vs Abramski. He lied on Question 11 "Are you the actual buyer/transferee".

The 5th Amendment does not prohibit voluntary self incrimination. No one forces a prohibited person to buy from a licensed dealer and fill out the form 4473.
 
The problem with changing mental health standards is that we already have one. Non-voluntary commitments SHOULD result in a court record - as others have noted its the court process that is being questions on the current form 4473. Court records should be public record and available for a "background check"

What if we institute a tougher standard? You move one step down the road where, on order to purchase a firearm, you have a positive duty to show you are mentally healthy or at least do not exhibit mental health conditions.

"No" doctor is signing off on "Patient X is mentally healthy and does not represent an increased danger to others through firearm ownership" You might get some who will sign off "Patient X does not, at time of examination, exhibit symptoms of the following mental health conditions (enumerated list)" I say "no" doctor. Being passingly familiar with the medical requirements of the MI medical marijuana laws through a friend who worked in that industry doctor shopping was not unheard of. Some doctors were setting up "offices" in hotel rooms with 15 minute appointments to sign off on medical issues for the card. When the first "mental health" hurdles fail to stop violence expect more to be imposed until the limitations become onerous for near everyone.

As Glenn noted this rush to claim "mental health" issues and offer them up as a way to limit rights weakens our argument overall. What mental health issues are severe enough that, outside of the court system, we should be limiting rights? If I proposed a mental health questionnaire for voting it would fail with precedent and prejudice.

Further I maintain such regulation would either become so onerous that it severely limited the rights of everyone beyond the "targeted" group or so ineffective as to present nothing but an inconvenience.
 
I agree the mental health part - a scary slippery slope.

If you look at a hardcore gun grabbing state like MA for instance, one of the things they did purposefully to remove gun rights from as many people as possible is they setup their whole criminal system such that many minor crimes that might even be a violation in other states carry a 2.5 year maximum jail sentence. A first time DWI, soliciting a prostitute, many others. Does anybody ever even do jail time for those crimes? Oh god no, some of such crimes have never resulted in more than a $1000 fine in the history of the state, but they are "felonies" on paper just the same when run through NICS.

*not* trying to start an argument over criminal acts being OK, but I tend to think first time DWI or getting a hooker does not make someone any more likely to misuse a gun and certainly shouldn't carry a 2.5 year jail sentence (especially if jail time is never even imposed)... versus armed robbery or violent crime of which I think certainly does pose a higher risk which is why such laws are there.

That sort of stuff sounds a lot like what they would do to non whites in certain places, to keep them from voting for instance - at any opportunity make them criminals and strip certain rights as a result.

What happens when MA becomes savvy to removing guns from people via "mental health" considerations? They could very easily get all sorts of records from all sorts of mental health facilities and misuse/misinterpret/overstate them in a variety of ways to cut people off from firearms ownership. And I think they very well may do it some day given the opportunity. At that point the appeals process would be even more important than it is now.
 
Very much agree riffraff. I tend to be very left leaning myself but have friends who lean left and right. Fellow left wingers claim to support small guy and working class but then look at me weird when I say any attempt at disarming us is classist and removes marginalized groups ability to fend off attackers. Don’t want a political argument of left vs right but would be nice to be better equipped to explain why gun rights are necessary for a free society no matter where you lean. Hard to convince certain types they’ve been misled about guns
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top