Mentally Ill and Firearms

[Uncle Buck]

If someone is determined, by the mental health profession or the courts, to be ...not in their right mind, how is it reported to NCIC? I am assuming it is, but the process is unclear to me.

 

[Eghad]

adjudication/due process has to occur in the legal system saying you are mentally defective.

 

[Evan Thomas]

There's a good reason the process is unclear to you, Uncle Buck. There is no process. At present, there's no Federal law requiring states to submit this information to the NICS, and some just don't; and some do, but not consistently... This is hardly surprising, when state governments are as strapped for cash as they've been for a while now. Tracking and reporting both cost money, so if they're not required to do it...

A few states (I believe Delaware is one example) have passed, or are passing, their own reporting requirements, but there are inconsistencies in just what is supposed to be reported.

But then there's the Fix Gun Checks Act, which, in the unlikely event it passes, will tidy all this up ever so nicely. [/sarcasm]

And as Eghad points out, at least at present, the standard for depriving a person of gun rights is higher than "not in their right mind." (Fortunately for some of us... )

 

[Uncle Buck]

OK, I understand that. But how is it recorded/documented in the NCIC system?

"Hi, I am Dr. Freud and I just want to let you know Uncle buck is nuttier than a Christmas Fruitcake."

Part of the reason I am curious about this is the shooting in Arizona with the congresswoman. "Every one" knew Jared was hearing voices, but if he saw a psychiatrist, why wasn't he flagged?

I have some friends who are disabled vets, they refuse to seek treatment/help because they are afraid they will be flagged and not allowed to ever own a gun again.

 

[Evan Thomas]

It takes more than just seeing a psychiatrist to be flagged.

For the purpose of determining who's a prohibited person (due to mental deficiency) under Federal law, some sort of judicial process has to have taken place: an involuntary commitment hearing, in a court of law, resulting in a commitment -- which generally requires both a finding that the person is mentally ill, and also that he's a danger to himself or others.... or a legal ruling that the person is mentally defective and needs a guardian... etc. It's not just a matter of Joe Schmoe's shrink calling the cops or the Department of Public Health and saying, "Umm, I think Mr. Schmoe is off his rocker."

The state has to decide how any reporting is to be done; I'm not sure, but I'd assume that in states where it's done halfway efficiently, such rulings are reported to a central agency such as the Health Department, which then sends the information on to the Feds. What the Feds do with said information, whether they actually put it in a computer database or just stick it in a file drawer somewhere, is a closed book to me...

 

[Tom Servo]

It takes more than just seeing a psychiatrist to be flagged.

True, but had the Pima sheriff charged Laughner for the threatening phone calls he was known to be making, he would have been charged. At that point, adjudication by a judge would have prevented him from purchasing a firearm.

 

[Uncle Buck]

Thanks. I kinda figured a court would have to be involved, but was not sure.

I knew it had to be more than just a phone call, but the rest is just a blank to me. I really want these guys to see someone who can help them, but I do not know how to lessen their fears.

I am going to try to get a hold of someone in the mental health career field tomorrow and see what the VAs' system is and if it would effect them.

 

[Evan Thomas]

It takes more than just seeing a psychiatrist to be flagged.

True, but had the Pima sheriff charged Laughner for the threatening phone calls he was known to be making, he would have been charged. At that point, adjudication by a judge would have prevented him from purchasing a firearm.

If he'd been convicted of a felony (terroristic threats would qualify, I think), that would have taken care of it right there.

If he'd been acquitted of criminal charges by reason of insanity, or found incompetent to stand trial (as he now has been), that would also have taken care of it, I think, presuming that type of verdict in a criminal trial is routinely reported. And in any case, he'd have been locked up, and his ability to purchase a firearm would have been moot.

But if, for instance, the charges had been dropped and Mr. Loughner had been involuntarily committed after a civil commitment hearing, it would, again, have depended on a much more uncertain reporting process... so it's possible that he still would not have made it into the system.

But it sure would have been more likely that he'd have been stopped.

I am going to try to get a hold of someone in the mental health career field tomorrow and see what the VAs' system is and if it would effect them.

Good luck with this, Buck -- you're a good friend. Way too many veterans (not to mention active military) suffer (and die, sometimes) because they don't get treatment they need, and if you can do anything to help these guys, that's a fine thing.

If they're not dangerous to themselves/others, there's no reason, under current law, that they'd ever be involuntarily committed, or even have it come up. And if they are ill enough for that to be a concern, it's even more important that they should get help. Important as they are, gun rights shouldn't trump a threat to life.

 

[Tom Servo]

A lot of people stop at the "mentally defective" question when filling out a 4473. My usual explanation is, "it only qualifies if a judge said you're crazy."

The opinion of a spouse doesn't affect your legality to buy a firearm

 

[Aguila Blanca]

True, but had the Pima sheriff charged Laughner for the threatening phone calls he was known to be making, he would have been charged. At that point, adjudication by a judge would have prevented him from purchasing a firearm.

There is no way of knowing what a court might (or might not) have adjudicated, since it didn't happen. The court might have slapped him with a fine for making harassing phone calls and sent him on his way.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I am going to try to get a hold of someone in the mental health career field tomorrow and see what the VAs' system is and if it would effect them.

If I were using the VA healthcare system, they are the LAST place I'd go for psychological or psychiatric help. Just like some shrinks overdiagnosing ADHD and overprescribing Ritalin for kids who just want to be kids, the VA system is currently fixated on PTSD. Couple that with the fact that the VA system in reality has comparatively few experienced doctors and a LOT of interns and residents (i.e. medical students) and you have a recipe for getting a lot of people's rights to firearms taken away improperly due to misdiagnosis and an overabundance of caution.

 

[Detachment Charlie]

PTSD, VA & 2nd Amend.

I'm scared poopless that a VA determination of service connected disability due to PTSD would screw my 2nd Amend rights.
Thousands of others should also be worried.

 

[Nnobby45]

Couple that with the fact that the VA system in reality has comparatively few experienced doctors and a LOT of interns and residents (i.e. medical students) and you have a recipe for getting a lot of people's rights to firearms taken away improperly due to misdiagnosis and an overabundance of caution.

That's correct! But it's worse than that. In addition to the above there are lawmakers" attempts to change the criteria.

Some anti gun lawmakers would include any one at all who has sought professional counciling to help them get over temporary conditions such as grief, depression, etc., etc. Your doctor would be required to report you.

Or what about that DUI you had 20 years ago before you grew up and settled down?

You can rest absolutely assured that there are those working right now to include as many of the general public as possible who would be ineligible to own a gun.

Imagine the hoops you'd be jumping thru to get your rights back.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

DC, thousands of other veterans ARE worried about the same thing. And it doesn't matter if the PTSD is ruled service-related or not.

 

[Evan Thomas]

Do you know of any cases in vets have lost their rights that way, AB? The standard for involuntary commitment is behavior, not just diagnosis, whether the latter is accurate or not.

Unless they have special, VA-only, inexperienced judges and attorneys, as well.

The VA leaves a lot to be desired in terms of mental health treatment; my mother worked in that system for some years, and had stories that would curl your hair -- most of which involved civil-service deadwood, not bright-eyed youth. But for vets with few resources and major problems, it may still be better than nothing.

 

[Detachment Charlie]

F'em. Molon Labe.

 

[Nnobby45]

Do you know of any cases in vets have lost their rights that way, AB? The standard for involuntary commitment is behavior, not just diagnosis, whether the latter is accurate or not.

It's also a matter of what future criteria will be as determined by anti-gun lawmakers. If such veterans haven't lost their rights (yet), there are those who would like to change that.

 

[Evan Thomas]

Do you know of any cases in vets have lost their rights that way, AB? The standard for involuntary commitment is behavior, not just diagnosis, whether the latter is accurate or not.

It's also a matter of what future criteria will be as determined by anti-gun lawmakers. If such veterans haven't lost their rights (yet), there are those who would like to change that.

Sure there are -- but it ain't gonna happen in the current political climate, any more than things like renewing the AWB are going to happen.

I know there's a lot of hysteria around about this, especially since the so-called "Veterans' Disarmament Act" (H.R. 2640, the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007). But it's just that, pretty much -- hysteria. And it's been deliberately whipped up by a few people within the gun-rights community, unfortunately.

Good discussions of the issue, in relation to that law, can be found at the NRA's website, and at Military.com. The latter does a particularly good debunking job.

Section 922 of the relevant bit of US code is very clear: the determination that someone is mentally defective requires "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 to others; or (2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.” (My emphasis.)

And a shrink, experienced or not, isn't, on his/her own, a "lawful authority." It requires action by a legal entity, not a medical one, to make such a determination.

 

[Eghad]

I work with medical readiness as a part of my job with the military. The individuals have a yearly medical check. The biggest part is a interview with a health professional who asks you a series of questions.

Some of those deal with mental health. I have seen them come back with a profile that says you can not carry of fire your issued weapon. I had to report it to the Commander and supervisor. Seems the individual was having a bad hair month and really doesn't have a problem. However he now has to go see a mental health professional for an evaluation to clear this.

Keep in mind some of these folks doing the interviews are contracted using scripted questions that come with a flowchart for yes and no answers.

The military is taking the PTSD stuff very seriously.

I was talking to a fellow veteran and friend yesterday. He has a friend who decided he wanted to up his disability percentage for PTSD with the VA. So he did not answer the questions truthfully. This initiated actions by the VA. He is in the process of having to prove himself competent to pay his bills and manage his money.

when dealing with the military or VA it is not a thing to play around with.

I was treated by the VA for depression. However, I now see an individual in private practice. The care was much better and more personal. I am doing very well now thanks to it. The VA tended to just throw pills at things.

 

[Uncle Buck]

Vanya, Thanks for the links.

I really do not think these guys are a threat to themselves or others and neither do their better half's.