Should mental health records be part of the NICS background check?

[longeyes]

No, too much opportunity, as things now stand, for abuse. "Public health" is becoming a Soviet-style wedge into our freedoms.

And, trust me, clerical mistakes in this area do happen.

 

[Valkman]

Right now it's a joke anyway since only 22 states report mental health stats to the FBI. NV does not so the FBI does not know of anyone here deemed to be a danger "to themselves and others".

No.

 

[antsi]

I am seeing two different kinds of objections here.

One is pragmatic - "there shouldn't be a mental health exclusion because it will be abused by the antis to deny RKBA to people who would otherwise be appropriate candidates for RKBA."

The other is idealistic - "RKBA is inalienable, and should never be denied to anyone for any reason."

The idealistic version is unconvincing to me. Clearly there are some people who cannot be trusted with full adult rights and responsibilities. My grandmother's brother, for instance, had severe Alzheimer's and became very hostile, paranoid, and irrational for a while. His family took his guns away from him; rightly so. Folks above I suppose would say, "Well, don't Alzheimer's patients have a right to defend themselves?" I would say my great uncle was not competent to have adult rights and responsibilities, so at that point he has a right to be cared for by people who are competent adults. The family took his guns away, along with his drivers license and car keys and a number of other potential means of hurting himself or others - but they also took the responsibility for protecting him and taking care of him.

Similarly, anyone else who is permanently and severely mentally impaired, to the point that they are not responsible for their actions, should be cared for in a safe and humane way, while "securing" them from harming themselves or others.

Legally and ethically, a person who is so impaired as to be not responsible for their own actions is a clearly and distinctly different phenomenon than a person who seeks treatment for depression and anxiety. In a perfect world, we really shouldn't have to worry about overspill between these two categories.

However, this is where we run into the "pragmatic" objections. This isn't a perfect world. In this world, I am more frightened of the nanny-state autocrats than I am of the mentally defective people. Cho killed 32 people, which would have been less if people could have shot back at him. Stalin killed 20 million; the extent of his autocratic power ruled out any possibility of "shooting back" at him.

Some people too crazy to have guns? Definitely.

Any government I trust with the power to make that call? Nope; not this side of the second coming.

 

[Art Eatman]

Maybe the term "mental health records" is too broad.

When the records in question derive from a court process, with professional people involved with the legal process, that's one thing. But there are many other file-folders with "mental health records" which could readily be misused or misinterpreted.

Present law says court-adjudicated dangerous mental patients are barred from owning firearms. Seems to me those records should be available to law enforcement.

Other records? No.

Art

 

[Glockman17366]

Psychology is an inexact science at best. If a mental health practitioner has an anti-rights bias, this could (would) lead to citizens being denied a right.

The AMA is on record as being anti-rights (when it comes to guns). I don't know what the American Psychiatric Association's position is, or even if they have one.

Many Americans have been denied their full rights due to the Lautenburg origined law concerning domestic violence. That law is way too broad for equitable treatment of American citizens.

I reckon at one time or another, any citizen could be diagnosed when a chronic mental condition, whether that was true or not.

I'm very concerned by allowing any health aspects be part of the NICS could be detrimental to people's rights.

However, I do agree with Art in this statement:
"Present law says court-adjudicated dangerous mental patients are barred from owning firearms. Seems to me those records should be available to law enforcement."

However, I think any such adjudication must be reviewed at certain intervals to determine if the condition continues. If this isn't in the law, it should be...

 

[Charles Martel]

Is there something wrong with my wife owning a gun? What about me owning one, since I live with her and she has access to them? What about my friend, a graduate student from India, he has no right to defend himself?

Nothing wrong with your wife. But if she is not a citizen she should not be allowed to own a gun. Sorry.

Your graduate friend from India and many people I know who are not citizens should NOT be allowed to own guns. Come on people! Gun ownership is explicitly reserved for citizens of the USA.

 

[Charles Martel]

Mental health records should definitely be part of the NICS check. Common sense. If there is any indication of a violent disposition towards others then you don't get a gun. Otherwise, they cannot restrict your right TKBA - PERIOD.

Who makes that determination? Who else? First, legislators. Second, judges apply the law. I don't want any more Cho's with guns.

And I don't want my right to carry restricted by nonsensical laws or "gun free zones." A stoopider idea has never come down the pike.

 

[Charles Martel]

If we are to expand the nature of a mental health denial, it must be on fair, objective criteria with a robust, fair, and actually functional appeal process.

Agree 100% particularly with the functional appeal process.

 

[.cheese.]

I say no.

When somebody voluntarily seeks psychotherapy - they do so with the understanding and agreement that what they talk about is confidential.

It is only when they express a desire to harm others or themselves, that the therapist is supposed to notify authorities, family, or a hospital.

However, if I go into a therapist's office seeking to work out some mild depression (we all get it at some point, some of us do nothing about it, others seek solutions like therapy) - I wouldn't want my telling a therapist that I'm feeling down becoming a part of government records. That's just big brother watching everything.

Something like that would have a negative impact on the psychology/therapy industry, because people would be thinking, "I don't want big brother analyzing every detail of my life." - and on top of that, people who might really need therapy and/or meds, would not get it out of fear of the government watching, and that can't be a good thing. We shouldn't be discouraging people who need help from getting it.

To think that legislators have the ability to exercise restraint in using those kinds of records - well.... it would be foolish.

 

[Charles Martel]

Yikes! Whatever happened to self defense as a natural right? I believe it has nothing to do with citizenship. It is also why I turned down a gig in the UK, let alone fly anywhere.

Which is precisely the decision anyone wanting to come to the USA should face. Our immigration is out of control. I don't want to arm them to boot.

 

[.cheese.]

Now, on the other hand, if you've been sent to a psychiatric hospital - sure that, should be in there.

But things like voluntary therapy, voluntary usage of anti-depressants and anti-anxiety medication, etc.... that's private info IMO.

 

[Charles Martel]

Confiscating a troubled person's guns or preventing purchase may do that person as well as society a favor, but it should never be unconditionally permanent by law, Lautenburg style as in the case of restraining orders for domestic violence. The only exceptions I can see to having a right of self defense is when one is under someone else's professional care and protection, such as in prison, in a hospital, or in a mental institution. Obviously, being of age and on a college campus doesn't work, not to mention other gun free zones.

Agree 100%. Restrictions should not be permanent and there should be an appeal process even for "domestic violence" which has evolved into a way of restricting the gun rights of innumerable law abiding citizens.

 

[Charles Martel]

No, no no no no and no. I am scared ****less I would be denied. I was diagnosed 'obsessive compulsive' some years ago - no symptoms - should I be denied? I was on Zoloft and Prozac (different times) when I was a teenager. Should I be denied? The social security board told me I was fine, shut up and get a job. Am I the kind of person they are trying to prevent from getting a gun?

Of course not. Only if you displayed an intractable penchant for violence.

 

[Jeff White]

No, mental health is very subjective. I doubt if you could get 10 mental health professionals to agree on what the criteria for denial of purchase should be.

I doubt if there would be an easy way to do the data capture involved in adding that to the database.

Besides being too subjective, it would be too hard to accomplish.

Jeff

 

[PotatoJudge]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

You're looking at them as immigrants, illegals, or something with less humanity than us citizens. Their rights are the same as ours (really, there is no us and them in this case, merely "all men"), and just as inalienable.

I'm with Art on the separation of judicial and medical mental health records, that's what I was getting at when I asked for a definition of "mental health records."

 

[only1asterisk]

Mr. Martel

I think we'll go find another gun for my wife tonight, just for you.

David

 

[Fulcrum of Evil]

You sure? Or is this just tin foil hat stuff?

No, it's an effective strategy that's pretty much the avowed method of the Bradyites. It's basically another form of incrementalism.

 

[ServiceSoon]

The problem is that everybody suffers from one form or another of mental illness.

 

[Art Eatman]

Heck of a note to be all mistook for well over a half-century, y'know? Here all the time I thought the Bill of Rights was human rights. "Enumerated", not "granted", which says that they're rights that exist even in the complete absence of any sort of government.

But I'd imagine that court decisions about dangerous mental incompetence, if not sealed and if it occurred to the folks operating the records-keeping system to do so, are normally sent on to the NICS folks. My understanding is that as the law now stands, ten years of "clean living" and eligibility is restored.

The real issue at hand, seems to me, would be to go beyond what the courts decide. That's dangerous.

Art

 

[plexreticle]

The vast majority of people with mental health problems are not violent. People should never be discriminated against because of medical conditions.

 

[awkx]

NICS is unnecessary

If someone is so dangerous that they shouldn't have a gun, then they shouldn't be loose on the streets. Conversely, if someone isn't dangerous enough to be denied liberty, then he shouldn't be denied the right to armed self-defense either.
So, I propose a new instant-check system: If the potential buyer is locked up in jail or in a mental institution, then they shouldn't be allowed to firearms. Otherwise, the sale should be allowed.

 

[Sistema1927]

#1 - Eliminate NICS. It kills people (just like all gun control).

#2 - What, are you crazy? Don't you realize that most "mental health practitioners" are about one level lower than witch doctors?

#3 - It would only take them adding "firearms addiction" to the DSM-IV to get all of us locked up.

 

[oldfart]

Actually, there should be a third choice: "No, no, hell No!" For those who believe it can't hurt, let me point to the Social Security Act.

 

[.cheese.]

some would say as gun-nuts, we have violent tendencies..... so by default, anybody who would want a gun, therefore has potential violent tendencies, a mental issue, and because of that should be denied buying a gun.

You can't buy a gun, because you're obviously violent as demonstrated by your desire to buy a gun!

Sounds stupid right? I'll bet the legislators would eat it up though.

 

[ACP]

Of course. The question answers itself.