Let's make damn sure that mental illness records get input into the NICS background check

[spin]

this time.

ONE MILLION MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS NOW IN BRADY BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM
Millions more still need to be added
January 07, 2011 )

Washington, D.C. – Following the Virginia Tech tragedy in April 2007, legislation was passed in December 2007 and signed by President George W. Bush on January 8, 2008 to improve the Brady background check system. Over the past three years, the number of state records of prohibited gun purchasers in the system has increased dramatically. Some states have taken action via state legislation and federal grants, but other states have failed to act.

The number of disqualifying mental illness records submitted from the states and territories to the National Instant Criminal Background Check Systems Index increased significantly, from 402,047 records to 929,254 records, from January 1, 2008 to August 31, 2010. When federal records are added, the total disqualifying mental illness records approaches 1.1 million.

However, research generated by the NICS Improvement Act requirements indicates that millions of relevant records are still missing from the system. The National Center for State Courts and SEARCH, the National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, estimate that more than 2 million disqualifying mental illness records should be in the NICS Index based on responses from only 42 of 56 U.S. states and territories.

“The good news is that background checks work. They help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. Since 1994, 1.9 million gun purchases by dangerous people have been stopped,” said Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “However, incomplete information from the states puts us all at risk. We need to, and can, do much more to prevent another Virginia Tech.”emphasis added
http://www.emailwire.com/release/55223-ONE-MILLION-MENTAL-HEALTH-RECORDS-NOW-IN-BRADY-BACKGROUND-CHECK-SYSTEM.html

You can see if Your State is behind on inputting mental illness records at:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/Facts/2011-01-05_Overview_State_Records_of_Mental_Prohibitors.pdf

If you notice Arizona, the site of the recent tragic shooting, has input 4,465 records in the last 2 years and 8 months when the state estimate is that 121,700 records need to get into the system.

Many of the recent mass shootings have been caused by people with severe mental problems who were able to legally buy firearms. If the states took the problem of mental illness seriously and updated the NICS background check system on a timely basis, we might avoid another mass shooting. Dealers do not sell firearms to people who are rejected by the NICS system.

To accomplish this we just need to push our states to comply. No new laws need to be passed.

[LisaL]

1. Would Loughner have any records?

I haven't seen any information he was ever mentally evaluated or diagnosed with anything.

[JuniperLea]

3. Exactly right...

We have no information that says he's actually seen a mental health professional, he would have slipped through the cracks anyway.

And how many of us would "accidentally" get on that list? How many would be placed on that list for nefarious purposes?

We need to offer mental health care for all. The only force I would take is the standard 5150 that already exists in most states.

[spin]

4. Thats another area we need to work on ...

Numerous stories have been aired describing how fearful students were of Loughner and how a professor was afraid to turn his back when Loughner was in his class.

He was asked to leave his classes until he had a mental evaluation. Arizona has laws that could have allowed his involuntary commitment according to the CBS nightly news playing in the background as I type this. I sure a lot of people feel sorry tonight that they didn't follow up on their concerns.

But the fact remains that Arizona and many other states are behind on inputting the names of people they already have identified as dangerously mentally unstable. Many of these people could walk into a gun store tomorrow and buy a firearm and go on their own rampage.

There is no excuse for this.

[cutlassmama]

5. He was supposed to be on meds that he didn't take so obvsiouly

someone saw him at one time.

[LisaL]

19. Where did you get that info?

Link?

[AlinPA]

2. Does AZ require background checks to buy guns?

[slackmaster]

6. Yes, it's required in all states

All sales of new firearms require a background check on the buyer.

State laws vary on transfers of used firearms, but federal law generally prohibits people who are not federally licensed gun dealers from engaging in any kind of interstate transaction.

[AlinPA]

15. Thanks.

[spin]

8. NICS is a system that does an instant background check on a gun buyer ...

Brady Act Requirements

Mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Act) of 1993, Public Law 103-159, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) was established for Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to contact by telephone, or other electronic means, for information to be supplied immediately on whether the transfer of a firearm would be in violation of Section 922 (g) or (n) of Title 18, United States Code, or state law. The Brady Act is a public record and is available from many sources including the Internet at www.atf.gov.

The NICS is a national system that checks available records on persons who may be disqualified from receiving firearms. The FBI developed the system through a cooperative effort with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and local and state law enforcement agencies. The NICS is a computerized background check system designed to respond within 30 seconds on most background check inquiries so the FFLs receive an almost immediate response. Depending on the willingness of state governments to act as a liaison for the NICS, the FFLs contact either the FBI or a designated state Point of Contact (POC) to initiate background checks on individuals purchasing or redeeming firearms. The background check process, as performed by the FBI and by state POCs, is described below.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/fact-sheet

Focus turns to Arizona's gun laws
January 10, 2011

***snip***

By law, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, includes criminal and some mental health records, but only for individuals who have been committed or found mentally defective in court.

Loughner was forced to leave Pima Community College last year after multiple run-ins with campus police, and was told he could not return until he received a mental health clearance, college officials said. Those records "likely" would not have shown up on a federal background check, Malte said.

He said Arizona needs to join more than a dozen other states and expand the records they supply NICS.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/10/nation/la-na-0110-glock-gun-control-20110110

[AlinPA]

16. Thanks.

[jody]

7. Agree but IMO we should keep 18 USC 922 that prohibits ownership to those who have been adjudicated

as a mental defective or been committed to a mental institution.

I oppose giving some bureaucrat the authority to decide whether an individual can exercise an inalienable right without recourse to appeal.

[spin]

10. Good point. I also agree. The bottom line is that the names of people with actual severe mental ...

problems that are already identified and whose diagnosis is accurate and uncontested need to be input into the NICS system.

In a little less than 3 years Arizona has only input 4465 out of an estimated 121,700 records or 1623 records per year. I estimate that at that rate they will have input all the records they estimate are available right now by the year 2083!

[Maine_Nurse]

41. it doesn't work that way

Having a severe mental illness is not a ban to purchasing weapons. Only having been involuntarily committed and/or judged to be mentally incompetent is a ban. In fact, unless either of those court proceedings have taken place, there is no legal way to report anything about someone having a mental health condition no matter how severe (MAJOR HIPPA violation).

[Kennah]

9. Some years back, I believe in the mid 1990s ...

... there was an effort to change the law in Washington state regarding mental illness and the ability to own or possess firearms.

The mental health community stepped into the political fray and said please don't raise the bar too high. Doctors, and psychiatrists in particular, by and large aren't exactly a demographic of stereotypical RW conservatives and teabaggers.

Their argument was that if a person was involuntarily committed, then they should be prohibited from owning a firearm. However, they were concerned that any lower standard would lead to people who were in need of some help from asking for help and thus lead to more tragedies. A person who was voluntarily committed--in other words one who walked in and said "Help me"--if committed would not be prohibited from owning a gun.

Like others, I've not seen reporting that Loughner was ever committed, voluntarily or involuntarily.

[spin]

11. Loughner was wavng RED FLAGS with great vigor ...

he scared the hell out of fellow students and professors. He was asked to leave school and not return without having completed a mental evaluation.

In Arizona, anyone concerned can report odd behavior to mental-health experts
Monday, January 10, 2011; 10:32 PM

Under Arizona law, any one of Jared Lee Loughner's classmates or teachers at Pima Community College so concerned about his increasingly bizarre behavior could have contacted local officials and asked that he be evaluated for mental illness and potentially committed for psychiatric treatment.

That, according to local mental health and law enforcement officials, never happened.

"To the best of our knowledge, he was never and is currently not enrolled in our system," said Neal Cash, president of the Community Partnership of Southern Arizona, which provides mental health services in Tucson and Pima County for the state. While most of those it serves are on Medicaid, Cash said anyone diagnosed with a serious mental illness would be in its system.

***snip***

Mental health experts say that, unlike many other states - where little can be done to force an unstable person into treatment until he or she becomes violent and poses a danger to themself or others - Arizona is different.

Any person in Arizona can petition the court for a psychiatric evaluation solely because a person appears to be mentally ill and doesn't know it.

"When people appear mentally ill or show some instability, how do you get them to resources if the system doesn't know those people are out there?" Cash said. "Our crisis line is manned 24/7. Anyone concerned about his behavior could have called at any time."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/10/AR2011011007049.html

[Kennah]

13. If he's bat shit crazy ...

... then commit him. Otherwise we risk people being disenfranchised without any due process.

[DragonSlave]

12. ... As a person who has suffered from mental illness

I don't think we should attach unnecessary stigma to mentally unhealthy people.

That being said, I actually feel the second amendment should be repealed and everyone should have their gun taken away, not just the crazy people.

[spin]

17. Some people have serious mental conditions which could endanger others ...

but they are a minority of the people who suffer from mental problems. I, in no way, believe that if you have any mental condition you should be prohibited from buying and owning firearms.

You have every right to argue that the second amendment should be repealed and all firearms confiscated. The problem is that the idea is impracticable.

There are an estimated 300 million firearms in our nation. Nobody knows just how many and who owns them as in many states guns are not registered.

Obviously a law could be passed requiring all firearms to be turned in. If you think all gun owners would just hand over their weapons, I have some prime swampland to sell you here in Florida.



So 200 million firearms are turned in. You estimate that another 100 million firearms are still out there, but you have no idea who has them. You decide to do a door to door search. First you have to find someone who will do the search. The local police in the area where I live would be no real help. They believe in the Second Amendment and most have their own gun collections. The national guard would also probably refuse as would many in the army.

But let's say you do get some dedicated volunteers to go house to house. On the second day they run into a person who is willing to fight. Two of your men get killed. A week later another three guys are gunned down and four end up in the hospital. Three days later you enter a house and find some weapons but when your team leaves they are surrounded by one hundred armed men who have disabled the vehicles your team uses.

The next day your team quits.

That's the best case scenario. My daughter worked gathering census data this last year and the amount of animosity and distrust she encountered was amazing. There were many times she felt threatened. Some other census takers in our neighboring county were actually shot at. This resulted from people asking some simple questions like how many people live in your house.

[bobbolink]

43. Thank you for speaking out. I wish all these people who are so ready to discriminate

would have to attend a conference, as I did, and listen to people who are labeled as "mentally ill", and what it has done to their lives to be treated with such prejudice.

Buying that whole mess of "lone gunman....nutcase" crap is beneath those who consider themselves "progressive" and therefore capable of critical thinking.

[DragonSlave]

14. I oppose this because I have been mentally unhealthy in the past

I don't think we should attach unnecessary stigma to mentally unhealthy people.

We also shouldn't depend on private organization records (which a person cannot contest) in order to determine a person's rights and privileges.

That being said, I actually feel the second amendment should be repealed and everyone should have their gun taken away, not just the crazy people.

[slackmaster]

18. It takes an adjudication of mental incompetence to make a person ineligible to buy a firearm

A court action, which can be challenged.

That being said, I actually feel the second amendment should be repealed and everyone should have their gun taken away, not just the crazy people.

I've found that most people who make such absolute statements don't actually mean them literally. Usually they would make exceptions for certain government employees.

[spin]

20. I understand your concern ...

and I believe that if your name is placed on such a list, you should have every right to contest it. The overwhelming majority of people who have mental issues are NOT dangerous. A few are.

People like the Arizona shooter or the Virginia Tech shooter cause more stigma to mentally unhealthy people because they attract so much attention. If we can stop such people from legally buying firearms, it's a good first step. Of course, we need to provide treatment.

[Stinky The Clown]

21. This is a TERRIBLE idea.

Its another zero tolerance answer to a numerically small problem. A law such as this will adversely impact millions of people.

What is "mental illness?" A person taking meds for depression? A spouse sentenced by the court to anger management classes? An addict. A person convicted of DUI? A kid who took Ridilin? The line seems alarmingly fuzzy to me.

[spin]

22. This idea is supported by the Brady Campaign ...

POSITION: The Brady Campaign supports strengthening the Brady background check system to make it harder for criminals and other dangerous people to buy firearms. The Brady Campaign supported the NICS Inprovement Act of 2007, which provides for financial assistance to aid states in sending records to the National Instant Check System (NICS).


PROBLEM: Many states fail to supply complete records of prohibited gun buyers to the national Brady background check system or the Brady Law's National Instant Check System. That means many felons, domestic violence abusers, and those who are dangerously mentally ill can walk into a gun store and buy firearms without being stopped.

The Brady Law, which mandates that federally licensed firearms dealers do background checks on prospective gun purchasers, has prevented over 1.9 million prohibited persons from buying guns. However, a background check is only as good as the records it can search. Unfortunately, many prohibited persons are not blocked from buying guns because their records are not in the NICS, including about 80-90% of individuals with disqualifying mental health records, and one-fourth of those with felony convictions. Ten states do not provide any relevant domestic violence records that indicate prohibited purchasers.

***snip***

Q. Federal law prohibits people who are dangerously mentally ill from purchasing or possessing a gun. Does the NICS Act change who is covered by this prohibition?

A. No. The NICS Act does not change the prohibition enacted in 1968 that bars people who are dangerously mentally ill from purchasing or possessing a gun. Under federal law, people may not buy or possess a gun if they are “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to any mental institution.” ATF regulations define “adjudicated as a mental defective” as 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 others; or (2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.

The NICS Act has not changed these regulations. It should be noted that merely seeking or receiving treatment for mental illness does not bring someone within this prohibited class.

The NICS Act does provide that persons who are entered into NICS because of this mental illness prohibition may seek “relief from disabilities” by petitioning that their names be removed from NICS if they no longer suffer from the mental health condition that originally barred them from buying or possessing guns.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/backgroundchecks/nics

It's already law.

I hope this helped answer your questions.

[bobbolink]

23. If you think about it, you may realize that many of the most DANGEROUS people aren't so labeled.

Consider Cheney.

[Cetacea]

24. No offense intended, but you need to be educated.

I know more normal people who are far more likely to be violent than the severely ill that I know.
The mentally ill are no more violent than the non, and they have just as much a right to defend themselves as you do.

[spin]

25. I also have known mentally ill individuals ...

my ex wife suffered with postpartum depression and depression throughout our marriage. She was never dangerous or suicidal and in fact we both enjoyed target shooting handguns as a sport. After 22 years she decided to get a divorce. We still are friends to this day.

I can understand your feelings but perhaps you could also benefit from a little education. What I am talking about is already law.

POSITION: The Brady Campaign supports strengthening the Brady background check system to make it harder for criminals and other dangerous people to buy firearms. The Brady Campaign supported the NICS Inprovement Act of 2007, which provides for financial assistance to aid states in sending records to the National Instant Check System (NICS).

]
PROBLEM: Many states fail to supply complete records of prohibited gun buyers to the national Brady background check system or the Brady Law's National Instant Check System. That means many felons, domestic violence abusers, and those who are dangerously mentally ill can walk into a gun store and buy firearms without being stopped.

The Brady Law, which mandates that federally licensed firearms dealers do background checks on prospective gun purchasers, has prevented over 1.9 million prohibited persons from buying guns. However, a background check is only as good as the records it can search. Unfortunately, many prohibited persons are not blocked from buying guns because their records are not in the NICS, including about 80-90% of individuals with disqualifying mental health records, and one-fourth of those with felony convictions. Ten states do not provide any relevant domestic violence records that indicate prohibited purchasers.

THREAT: Allowing dangerous people to purchase guns threatens the safety of our families and communities.

The Virginia Tech tragedy -- 32 students and teachers killed in the worst mass shooting in American history -- is an example of the dangers of this records gap. A court order finding the killer mentally ill and dangerous had not been entered into the Brady background check system by the State of Virginia.

URGENCY: Another tragedy like Virginia Tech could happen again. We must act now to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.

***snip***

Q. Federal law prohibits people who are dangerously mentally ill from purchasing or possessing a gun. Does the NICS Act change who is covered by this prohibition?

A. No. The NICS Act does not change the prohibition enacted in 1968 that bars people who are dangerously mentally ill from purchasing or possessing a gun. Under federal law, people may not buy or possess a gun if they are “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to any mental institution.” ATF regulations define “adjudicated as a mental defective” as 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 others; or (2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.

The NICS Act has not changed these regulations. It should be noted that merely seeking or receiving treatment for mental illness does not bring someone within this prohibited class.

The NICS Act does provide that persons who are entered into NICS because of this mental illness prohibition may seek “relief from disabilities” by petitioning that their names be removed from NICS if they no longer suffer from the mental health condition that originally barred them from buying or possessing guns. emphasis added
http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/backgroundchecks/nics

A minority of people with metal problems ARE dangerous. The names of these people should be input into the NICS background check system in a timely manner.

Remember that when a person with a severe mental problem does go on a killing spree, it doesn't help your cause in the least. Obviously we can't detect everybody, but the states have a backlog of names of people already determined to be dangerous that haven' been input.

You can see how your state is doing on processing these records into the NICS by visiting;

http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/Facts/2011-01-05_Overview_State_Records_of_Mental_Prohibitors.pdf

edited for typo

[Cetacea]

28. I'm all for gun control.

What bothers me is how the argument is framed. "Mentally ill" is such a broad term. How reasonable will further restrictions be? The laws already discriminate for people who have been hospitalized. So if your ex-wife had been hospitalized she would not be allowed to say, shoot someone who was raping her or trying to kill her.
This is one of the problems I have with generalizing the term "mentally ill".

edit: Thanks for the link

[spin]

29. That is a fair point ...

All I can can say is that it looks as though a person can appeal the decision ...

The NICS Act does provide that persons who are entered into NICS because of this mental illness prohibition may seek “relief from disabilities” by petitioning that their names be removed from NICS if they no longer suffer from the mental health condition that originally barred them from buying or possessing guns.
ttp://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/backgroundchecks/nics

[SoCalDem]

26. It only works if there IS a file.

There are millions of "odd" kids like him, whose parents pray every night, will "grow out of it"..Most will not cause mayhem, but some will:(

[spin]

32. My point is that there are files that have not been input ...

Many states are behind on inputting data and how many ticking time bombs are there that might go down to their local gun store and purchase a weapon to go on a mass murder spree?

Check and see how your state is doing.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/Facts/2011-01-05_Overview_State_Records_of_Mental_Prohibitors.pdf

[SoCalDem]

33. and with financial cutbacks, many will probably just sit there

:(

[spin]

37. The result may be another mass murder by a person with severe mental problems ...

:-(

[Cetacea]

27. Discriminatory. Restrictions should apply to everyone.

Are you saying that people with mental illness do not have the right to defend themselves?
Since the population is no more violent than people without mental illness the restrictions should apply to everyone.

[bobbolink]

42. You are quite right, and I appreciate you speaking up. It is VERY distrubing to come to a

"progressive" site and see such ignorance and discrimination.

Not that I am surprised... just disgusted.

Thank you for trying. :yourock:

[ileus]

30. I'd assume even a teabagger would want this.

[spin]

31. It's already in place ... we just have to make sure that our states input the data. (n/t)

[Posteritatis]

34. Because twenty percent of the population isn't stigmatized enough. (nt)

[quaker bill]

35. An unintended consequence

would be that more of the mentally ill would have to go and purchase their weapons at gun shows. This could make gun shows a tad more interesting....

[ManiacJoe]

38. Still illegal there, too.

The rules governing eligibility of firearm purchases do not change based on the location of the seller.

[cliffordu]

36. REGISTER ALL THE MENTALLY ILL RIGHT NOW !!!!!

For fucks sake.

If mental illness was really a factor in gun violence in any significant percentage, there would be tens of thousands of mass killings a year by the mentally ill.

Think of the number of us nut cases and the number of available guns.

Again, with the straw man arguments. Disgusting.

[spin]

39. O.K. Let's discuss this ...

A small percentage of those with mental illness are dangerous. Many states have a list of names of people that have been legally determined to present a serious hazard to others. Until these names are entered into the NICS background check database, many of these people will be able to legally purchase firearms at a gun dealer.

Q. Federal law prohibits people who are dangerously mentally ill from purchasing or possessing a gun. Does the NICS Act change who is covered by this prohibition?

A. No. The NICS Act does not change the prohibition enacted in 1968 that bars people who are dangerously mentally ill from purchasing or possessing a gun. Under federal law, people may not buy or possess a gun if they are “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to any mental institution.” ATF regulations define “adjudicated as a mental defective” as 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 others; or (2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.

The NICS Act has not changed these regulations. It should be noted that merely seeking or receiving treatment for mental illness does not bring someone within this prohibited class.

The NICS Act does provide that persons who are entered into NICS because of this mental illness prohibition may seek “relief from disabilities” by petitioning that their names be removed from NICS if they no longer suffer from the mental health condition that originally barred them from buying or possessing guns.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/backgroundchecks/nics/

I am well aware of what mental illness is as I have had some personal experiences with the condition in my own family. Fortunately, none of the family members that suffered from this condition were dangerous to others. I feel that all too often people in our society stigmatize all people with mental illness unfairly.

But there are people who are potentially dangerous and while it is infrequent, there have been mass murders committed by such people. People on this board are suggesting that the problem of mass murder could be solved by banning extended magazines or banning firearms like the Glock 19 from civilian ownership. Such ideas will accomplish nothing. Inputting the names of those who have been legally determined to have severe problems into the NICS database could prevent a future massacre.

Remember nothing hurts the image of those with mental illness more that a person who kills a large number of people because of his extremely serious version of the illness.

Of course, we also need to improve our mental healthcare system to be more available and affordable.

For more information on the subject visit the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence at:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/backgroundchecks/nics

To see how your state is doing on inputting names to the NICS database visit:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/Facts/2011-01-05_Overview_State_Records_of_Mental_Prohibitors.pdf

[cliffordu]

40. these are excellent points -

"Remember nothing hurts the image of those with mental illness more that a person who kills a large number of people because of his extremely serious version of the illness.

Of course, we also need to improve our mental healthcare system to be more available and affordable."

Until the mental health care system is fixed more of us will fall straight to the place where, if we have the capacity to be violent, will.

I read someplace that half of the prison population has a mentall illness connected to their incarceration...I dunno where I read it or whether it's accurate...

Reagan shut down the madhouses and what we have now is a direct result of that. He had plenty of help from his Democratic Congress.

I fully believe there are a lot of folks in charge that would be happy if we all committed suicide.

But I have a skewed point of view.