Is it an acceptable invasion of medical privacy?

[gorfle]

Today in the United States, the federal government keeps a database of all known persons who meet the following criteria:

1) Have been adjudicated mentally incompetent.
2) Have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

The federal government uses this database during a NICS (National Instant Crimnal Background Check System) background check when someone attempts to purchase a firearm through a federally licensed firearm dealer. Anyone who is listed in the database has having met the above criteria are disallowed from purchasing a firearm.

Only people who meet the above criteria have this information stored in the NICS database. No other medical data is kept in the NICS database.

Do you consider this an invasion of medical privacy? If so, do you consider it an acceptable invasion of medical privacy to do this?

[Jackpine Radical]

1. I consider it an unjustifiable invasion of privacy.

The implication is that a person, once having been committed, cannot be restored to a state of sufficient trustworthiness to be allowed to own a firearm. I should also point out that several large studies have shown that severe mental illness itself is not a predictor of violence (or at most a very weak one) by itself. Mental illness plus substance abuse is a somewhat better predictor, but still not at a level that would justify taking guns away from someone. I could probably make as strong an argument for the dangerousness of anyone with a fundamentalist belief system, high trait-anger, and a substance abuse problem.

[iverglas]

3. just to help you out

This has been the subject of some lengthy discussions here in the Guns forum.

The nature of the disqualifications from firearms ownership is a different issue from this one. This one is about how to identify people who are disqualified under the current rules.

My position - objectively, me not being a resident of the US - is that disclosing information about the medical histories of individuals who have not consented to the disclosure is an unjustified violation of privacy.

The NICS database contains information about the medical histories of individuals who do not want to possess firearms and will never attempt to acquire firearms. Their personal medical info has been disclosed to an agency, and for a purpose, that has nothing to do with their medical care.

My position has been that anyone who does wish to acquire a firearm should demonstrate that s/he is not disqualified, by consenting to the disclosure of such information. Disclosing that information about everyone who falls into the disqualified class, many and possibly most of whom will never attempt to aquire a firearm, is gross overreach for the purpose and thus unjustified.


typo fixed

[gorfle]

4. How to do it?

My position has been that anyone who does wish to acquire a firearm should demonstrate that s/he is not disqualified, by consenting to the disclosure of such information. Disclosing that information about everyone who falls into the disqualified class, many and possibly most of whom will never attempt to aquire a firearm, is gross overreach for the purpose and thus unjustified.


What kind of automated, instant mechanism can you imagine to achieve your position?

[iverglas]

6. "What kind of automated, instant mechanism can you imagine to achieve your position?"

Mu.

[gorfle]

13. So in other words...

You have nothing to offer.

We have a system in place today that provides near-instantaneous background checks for people buying firearms, at the expense of the privacy of people who have been determined to be mentally incompetent.

You want to replace this highly efficient system with a system that requires the intervention of a doctor to go through your medical records to make the same determination. I don't have a problem with allowing this option for those who chose it, but I don't want to make this the sole option as it is clearly inferior to the instant check ability we have today.

I would prefer it if NICS had no medical database, and requests for NICS background checks were routed through your insurance databases instead, with the prospective firearm buyer's consent.

But until such database connectivity exists, I'll go with what we have. It is a far, far simpler problem to track the mentally incompetent than set up consistent interoperability between NICS and every insurance database in the country.

Hopefully some day we will have national health care, and there will be a national health care database that NICS can query instantaneously based on consent. Canada could probably implement something like this right away, assuming your provincial insurance databases are similarly set up.

Right now it looks like most people agree with me that simply keeping a list of all mentally incompetent people is either not an invasion of medical privacy or it is acceptable in spite of it being so.

[iverglas]

19. so without the demagoguery

I don't have to answer the question just because you ask it.

What kind of effective, efficient method can you imagine for confiscating and destroying all the handguns in the US?

What? Deafening silence?

Kind of like my response to your "question":

What kind of automated, instant mechanism can you imagine to achieve your position?

What kind of automated, instant mechanism would you propose for obtaining a PhD in nuclear physics?

[gorfle]

22. Typical.

I don't have to answer the question just because you ask it.

So....you're willing to whine and complain but not offer any workable solutions that take everyone's concerns into consideration.

What kind of effective, efficient method can you imagine for confiscating and destroying all the handguns in the US?

What? Deafening silence?

Kind of like my response to your "question":

What kind of automated, instant mechanism can you imagine to achieve your position?

What kind of automated, instant mechanism would you propose for obtaining a PhD in nuclear physics?

Did you imagine this thread was a conversation about the confiscation or destruction of firearms, or PHDs in nuclear physics?

[iverglas]

24. do YOU imagine

that just because YOU ask me how to do something that YOU want done, I have to come up with a method for doing it???

YOU want it done instantaneously.

*I* don't give a shit how long it takes to do it.

*I* have no onus to come up with a way of doing something that YOU want done that *I* don't give a shit about.

Clear enough?

[gorfle]

32. I imagine it's pretty clear.

Why, I imagine it's pretty clear, Iverglas.

I imagine you aren't interested in trying to weight the interests of all parties involved.

I imagine you would prefer as many roadblocks to firearm ownership be erected as possible, and have them as high as possible.

So of course you don't give a shit how long it takes to do it. You aren't interested in coming up with an equitable solution.

Well you know what, Iverglas? If you aren't interested in coming up with an equitable solution, then neither am I. So fuck the mentally incompetent. They can stay on a government database while the rest of us normal people go about our business. 'Cause just like you don't give a shit how long it takes me to buy a firearm, I no longer give a shit if the mentally incompetent loose their right to privacy.

[iverglas]

34. fortunately for the world

No one's rights, or the exercise thereof, actually depends on whether you care about them.

Your attitude pretty much sums up much of what is seen in this forum, and in fact at this entire web site all too often, of course.

Rights are what you use to hit somebody else over the head with. If they're not big enough to hit you back, fuck them and their rights.

[gorfle]

36. You got it.

No one's rights, or the exercise thereof, actually depends on whether you care about them.

Well it must just chap your ass then that things are going my way anyways.

Your attitude pretty much sums up much of what is seen in this forum, and in fact at this entire web site all too often, of course.

Rights are what you use to hit somebody else over the head with. If they're not big enough to hit you back, fuck them and their rights.

Since this is precisely the attitude that you are dishing to gun owners like myself, this should not be surprising to you.

So again. Fuck the mentally incompetent and the criminals. I'm no longer interested in compromising on their behalf, especially when it's clear that the debate is all about preserving their interests with no consideration for mine. They can stay on the government database while the rest of us normal, law-abiding folks go about our business and enjoy instant background checks. Fuck 'em.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

42. That's some good shit.

[rrneck]

39. Safety

When it comes to firearms, safe ownership is an issue. Someone might not be violent, but they need to be able to maintian and own a firearm in a safe manner as well.

...fundamentalist belief system... You wouldn't have to make that argument to me. Some of the most dangerous people around.

[X_Digger]

40. Just an aside..

Should a homeless person without a gun safe be allowed to own? (barring adjudication of mental incompetence or a felony)..

[rrneck]

41. It's a tough call. Regulations

always come down hardest on those at the lower end of the economic spectrum. The poor and the working poor will have a more difficult time not only coming up with the required fees for ownership of firearms, but their lives tend to be more chaotic and unpredictable. I have seen suggestions regarding firearms licensing and membership in gun clubs which may or may not work fine for those who enjoy a steady income and consistent lifestyle, but the poor live from day to day and check to check. Bureaucratic hurdles, fees, and memberships would be very difficult for them. And they tend to live in more dangerous places with the least police protection so there is a greater possibility that they will have to defend themselves than somebody in the burbs.

And of course, in terms of mental competence, the poor suffer from a lack of proper physical and mental health care, which stacks the deck against them as well.

[jody]

2. Two points, (1) How easy is it to have one's name removed from NICS database, (2) Do we have a DNA

national database including everyone who has been convicted of a felony?

[old mark]

5. We don't have a national database of much of anything other

than fingerprints. I worked with "mentally ill" people for years, and found them to be individuals like everyone else. There are some who have committed extremely violent acts and who should never even be considered for release from a controlled environment, much less to own a firearm. There are some who would be perfectly fine with a weapon.

Does a person give up other constitutional rights after having been institutionalized?
A mental hospital is not a prison, although some of them are forensic in nature or have forensic units for criminaly insane offenders.


We must be able to judge people as individuals, probably in some judicial process.

mark

[jody]

7. I'm still concerned that VA will enter veterans with PTSD into the NICS database. I doubt very much

that once entered, a person could easily have her/his name removed from NICS.

[X_Digger]

12. "Relief from Disability"

http://www.peoplesrights.org/articletemplate.asp?id=46

By David Buda, of the Chicago case notoriety.

[gorfle]

15. Nope.

PTSD is not currently a criteria for barring firearm ownership.

The current medical criteria NICS uses are:

1) Have you been adjudicated mentally incompetent.
2) Have you been involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

Moreover, there is an appeal process for the NICS database.

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/index.htm

[gorfle]

18. Denial and Appeal process

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/nics_overview.htm

Denials and Appeals

Pursuant to the requirements addressing the process for filing an appeal as outlined in Sections 103 and 104 of the permanent provision of the Brady Act, individuals who believe that they were wrongfully denied the transfer of a firearm based on a record returned in response to the NICS background check process may request that the denying agency or the NICS Section provide the reason for said denial. The denying agency or the NICS Section must provide the individual with the information in writing within five business days after receipt of the appeal. Individuals directly addressing the NICS Section may request the reason for their denial by writing to:

Federal Bureau of Investigation
NICS Section
Appeal Services Team
Module A-1
Post Office Box 4278
Clarksburg , WV 26302-9922

Per Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 25.9(b) (1), (2) and (3), the NICS Section must destroy all identifying information on allowed transactions prior to the start of the next NICS operational day. The Voluntary Appeal File (VAF) process permits applicants to request that the NICS maintain information about them in the VAF to prevent future denials or extended delays of a firearm transfer.

[old mark]

21. I'm sure it will require a lawyer and a court hearing at least to get

off that data base. I wonder if they would even notify you if your name is on it....

mark

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

43. I have a friend who has PTSD and is a 100% medically disabled veteran.

He is also a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic with violent tendencies. I'm not sure he's on the list but he probably should be. He is a good friend, we pick on each other incessantly.

David

[iverglas]

45. "he probably should be"

A diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic with violent tendencies and PTSD. Ya think?

And yet he undoubtedly is not -- because how could he be? If he has never been involuntarily committed for treatment, he is not disqualified, is that not it?

Great system, that.

[Scout]

46. just like you're not a criminal unless you've been caught and convicted ;) n/t

[iverglas]

48. snork

Don't you know?

Everybody who commits a gun crime was already a criminal!

They wuz born with sheets, you see.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

49. You really do have a problem understanding sarcasm and subtlety. It's surprising...

as bright as you are.

David

[jody]

44. Thanks for the comments and reassurance but after all these years, I don't trust government. n/t

[biermeister]

8. it's probably just as easy as getting off the "no fly" list nt

[gorfle]

14. Are those points or questions?

They look like questions to me.

There is an appeal process for the NICS database.

I don't know about DNA databases.

[jody]

35. OK you win! I started off to state points that morphed into questions. Mea culpa. n/t

[DonP]

9. In Illinois Voluntary admission puts you on the ISP "no guns" list too

I had a family member admit themselves to a Psych treatment center for an addiction issue.

One of the papers she had to sign acknowledged that by voluntarily admitting herself for treatment she would be prohibited from owning firearms and a notice of her admission would be forwarded to the Illinois State Police.

[slackmaster]

10. It's not an invasion of privacy, and here's why

When a firearm transfer is denied because of a NICS background check, the specific reason for denial is not communicated to the seller or anyone else (including the buyer).

If a prospective buyer appeals the denial, the reason is communicated through private correspondence.

Since it's not disclosed to anyone other than the person who gets denied, there is no invasion of privacy.

[iverglas]

11. yes, why don't we just pretend that this assertion

has not already been repeatedly shown to be the dumb bumph it is, over and over and over again?

The disclosure is made WHEN THE INFORMATION IS PLACED IN THE NICS DATABASE, not when a query is made to the NICS database.

For the love of fucking fuck ...

[gorfle]

16. Who is it disclosed to?

The disclosure is made WHEN THE INFORMATION IS PLACED IN THE NICS DATABASE, not when a query is made to the NICS database.

Who is it disclosed to when it is placed in the NICS database?

[iverglas]

17. who cares?

It is DISCLOSED without the consent of the individual whose information it is.

Do you want to pretend it isn't?

[gorfle]

20. I care.

I care.

Who is it disclosed to?

[valhalla]

23. To whomever manages the database.

Someone has to see the information to enter it into your record in the NICS database.

[gorfle]

26. Precisely.

So the question is, what's the big deal if some government secretary sees this data as opposed to a secretary in a doctor's office?

[iverglas]

29. no, the question is

Why would you be squealing like a stuck pig if it were YOUR medical information being handed over to a government agency, but you don't care even a little bit when it is someone else's?

[gorfle]

33. You're exactly right.

Why would you be squealing like a stuck pig if it were YOUR medical information being handed over to a government agency, but you don't care even a little bit when it is someone else's?

You are exactly right, Iverglas. And since you aren't interested in finding an equitable solution to this problem that weighs the interests of people trying to buy firearms, then you are exactly right - Fuck the mentally incompetents' privacy. I no longer give a shit.

[slackmaster]

28. And that person is prohibited by law from disclosing it to any unauthorized person

So there is no problem.

[iverglas]

30. so?

Who cares?

What is the justification for DISCLOSING IT IN THE FIRST PLACE?

God there are some thickos around here, it seems. Or some who choose to appear thick. Or ... whatever.

It is not permissible to disclose someone's personal information "because" whoever it is disclosed to is prohibited from further disclosing it.

Honestly. I get dizzy from shaking my head.

[iverglas]

25. ooooh, aren't you cute?

It is disclosed to whoever/whatever creates and maintains and administers the database that is queried when someone attempts to purchase a firearm.

Figured out who/what that is yet?

It sure isn't the individual's health care providers, that much we do know, eh?

[gorfle]

27. So what's the big deal?

It is disclosed to whoever/whatever creates and maintains and administers the database that is queried when someone attempts to purchase a firearm.

Figured out who/what that is yet?

It sure isn't the individual's health care providers, that much we do know, eh?

So what's the difference between a government secretary handling this data and the doctor's secretary handling this data?

[iverglas]

31. we know what the difference is

So what's the difference between a government secretary handling this data and the doctor's secretary handling this data?

The difference is that it is not YOUR data.

[rrneck]

37. Delete

Delete

[rrneck]

38. Appeal Process Found the link in Post #15. Thanks. nt

[Taitertots]

47. Cut off your nose to spite your face

Now we have a perfectly functional instant, accurate, and inexpensive system for determining who is prohibited backed by the Brady bunch and accepted by the NRA and most gun owners. So it would seem the vast majority at DU disagree with you.

You want to replace that system because dangerously mentally ill people have that they were adjudicated mentally unfit or involuntarily committed reported to a confidential database held by the government. Your position is that we need to abandon an effective, instant, accepted, and inexpensive solution for one that at is going to upset millions of people, cost more, be prohibitively time consuming, and have arguable effectiveness.

[Indy Lurker]

50. Are the mentally incompetent issued drivers licenses?

Or do they just need to get 50% of the written test right like everyone else?

How is this handled in other sectors of the government?