Who is permitted to submit data to NICS?

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rajb123

member
Joined
Dec 22, 2010
Messages
892
Since the tragic events in Arizona there has been much discussion in the press about mental health information that should have been in the FBI NICS system that, some beleive, would have prevented the purchase of the subject gun that was used in the crime.

Who is permitted to submit information to the FBI and is the information checked for accuracy?

Does information that is submitted pre-date the creation of the system? For example, if grandpa was convicted of a felony or was committed to a mental hospital in 1960, is that information likely to be included in NICS?

I have read numerous press articles that imply the system is often circumvented by untruthful applicants and jurisdictions that fail to report data.
 
atlctyslkr said:
They should let doctors
Click to expand...
why should they let doctors? You are only restricted from purchase if you have been ajudicated mentally incompetent right? If you go to medical diagnosis instead of legal ruling you are starting down a very slippery slope aren't you?
 
They should let doctors
Click to expand...

You're kidding right? You'd have one individual, most without proper training, be the one to decide whether or not you can exercise a Constitutional right? With no involvement of the judicial system?

Wow. That just seems like an incredibly bad idea.

One AMA pamphlet from back in 2001 called guns "a virus that must be eradicated".
 
Maybe they should let Doctors report but this could be a tough call.Most Docs hate guns and would prob report folks for any reason to have their rights pulled.I would hate to be some guy who was having stress due to job,marital status or death of a family member and ask for a Happy pill to get you thru it,only to be reported as possibly unstable.
I wish people would realize that all the checkpoints and laws in the world will usually not deter and stop a madman from commiting his act.There is evil in this world,and it's nothing new.Some day,all newborns will be given a frontal labotomy because of legislation.Never can happen,I am not so sure?
 
Last edited:
Allowing doctors to submit information that would deprive one of one's rights would be a grave violation of the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause. Totally unconstitutional.
 
rajb123 said:
Since the tragic events in Arizona there has been much discussion in the press about mental health information that should have been in the FBI NICS system that, some beleive, would have prevented the purchase of the subject gun that was used in the crime.

Who is permitted to submit information to the FBI and is the information checked for accuracy?

Does information that is submitted pre-date the creation of the system? For example, if grandpa was convicted of a felony or was committed to a mental hospital in 1960, is that information likely to be included in NICS?

I have read numerous press articles that imply the system is often circumvented by untruthful applicants and jurisdictions that fail to report data.
Click to expand...
That's a very good question. I suspect that data from State's court systems, select LE reports, immigration, homeland security and military courts martials and discharge reports are some of the sources of information. I have no idea if and how other sources provide input.

I'm sure data entry of old disqualifying info pre-dating NICS was done although I have nothing to back that up.
 
Look at all the people who deal with depression for being injured (including a lot military vets ) they could be depressed because they are not able to do the things they did before due to an injury and the pain that goes with it. Where would the line be drawn to what is the limit.

I had a hand doctor who wouldn’t sign a waiver for me to use a crossbow all of bow season in the state of KY because in his word’s (shooting a deer is cowardly and it really just pisses me off) and he was a VA MD . So letting one Doctor have that kind of control can be a very very bad thing.
 
Whoa folks, you need to look at the bottom of this page...

www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/nics-index

"In addition to local, state, tribal, and federal agencies voluntarily contributing information to the NICS Index, the NICS Section receives telephone calls from mental health institutions, psychiatrists, police departments, and family members requesting placement of individuals into the NICS Index. Frequently, these are emergency situations and require immediate attention. Any documentation justifying a valid entry into the NICS Index must be available to the originating agencies."
 
I have to agree with the article that accidental deaths caused by doctors and gun deaths are apples and oranges. Just my opinion, but I could see deaths caused by doctors might be caused by any number of reasons other than negligence. Unforeseen reactions to medications or procedures comes to mind.
IMO a more valid statistic would be: What is the ratio of deaths/injuries caused by persons committing violent crimes versus deaths/injuries caused by those who are defending themselves against potential violent crimes?
 
atlctyslkr said:
They should let doctors
Click to expand...
They already do, happy? Didn't make a bit of difference in AZ did it? You know what you should be railing on and on about? The sheriff! He had the shooter in his gunsights:)))on five separate(six counting day of the attack)occasions, occasions where apparently this psychotic was openly manifesting psychotic behavior & mannerisms!

A simple mental health hold(72 hrs)very likely, very very likely indeed, would have resulted in a denial at point of purchase for a firearm. "Ahh" unfortunately the doctor's were never given the opportunity to weigh in on Mr Loughner's mental status, a direct consequence of a very politically active LE official failing to do his sworn duty....
 
1 in 100 in the U.S. have Schizophrenia they say. That's 2.5 MILLION people.

It's not against the law to be psychotic in public, unless you're playing in traffic or threatening to jump off a bridge AND you're actually on the edge of the bridge. Heck, even then it's not unlawful to be psychotic, it's the BEHAVIOR that gets you in trouble.

Acting out in class? Another common everyday happening. Teenagers, 20-somethings, alcohol and drugs, whatever.

There are actively psychotic people all around us every day. Here's an interesting web site I just googled up.

http://www.mentalhealthamerica.net/...zophrenia/schizophrenia-what-you-need-to-know

"Schizophrenia affects about 1% of the world population. In the United States one in a hundred people, about 2.5 million, have this disease. It knows no racial, cultural or economic boundaries. Symptoms usually appear between the ages of 13 and 25, but often appear earlier in males than females."

And that's just for Schizophrenia. There are other psychoses.
 
JohnBT said:
1 in 100 in the U.S. have Schizophrenia they say. That's 2.5 MILLION people.

It's not against the law to be psychotic in public, unless you're playing in traffic or threatening to jump off a bridge AND you're actually on the edge of the bridge. Heck, even then it's not unlawful to be psychotic, it's the BEHAVIOR that gets you in trouble.

Acting out in class? Another common everyday happening. Teenagers, 20-somethings, alcohol and drugs, whatever.

There are actively psychotic people all around us every day. Here's an interesting web site I just googled up.

http://www.mentalhealthamerica.net/...zophrenia/schizophrenia-what-you-need-to-know

"Schizophrenia affects about 1% of the world population. In the United States one in a hundred people, about 2.5 million, have this disease. It knows no racial, cultural or economic boundaries. Symptoms usually appear between the ages of 13 and 25, but often appear earlier in males than females."

And that's just for Schizophrenia. There are other psychoses.
Click to expand...
You don't have to be in violation of "a law!" You just need to be deemed a danger to yourself, or others...Everyone, everyone at Pima Co CC was in fear of him! LEO had more then ample reason to force a hold on him, they didn't, and six people are dead as a result...Doctors had nothing to do with it...
 
"You don't have to be in violation of "a law!" "

Well yes you do. I'm sorry, but that's the way it is. The law lays out in detail what a person has to do to get hauled off and put away for reasons related to mental health. For instance, read this quote...

"You have to have evidence that he is imminently likely to harm himself or others," said psychiatrist Chris Carson, who runs the Urgent Psychiatric Care Center in Phoenix, a crisis-evaluation facility.

"This was an unpredictable event, based on what we know," Carson said. "This is a kid who, from what I can tell, had never harmed anybody. People were put off by him. But there's no evidence that he was a danger to himself or others."

He could also care for himself in legally speaking, so a court petition likely wouldn't have put him away for an evaluation.
________________________________

"LEO had more then ample reason to force a hold on him"

For what, being bizarre, odd, rude and out to lunch? I don't think that happens in any state, but all of my 36 years in the business has been in Virginia.

Here's an interesting number: "Arizona's public mental-health system still serves roughly 25,000 people."

I'd guess there are 2, 3 or 5 times that many who could use help. Maybe more.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/01/13/20110113arizona-shooting-jared-loughner-mental-health-issues.html#ixzz1B45I3Z1u"


(I still don't know any details about the threatening phone calls and death threats. Those are behaviors that clearly violate a law or three. He should have/could have been arrested and probably evaluated.)

To continue the discussion about his behavior at school...

You have to do something that proves you are a danger to yourself or others. Shouting in class or talking out of turn doesn't qualify and neither does talking trash or speaking in tongues. It's odd, it's bizarre and it's out of place, but none of it qualifies as obviously dangerous behavior.


"everyone at Pima Co CC was in fear of him!"

So? That doesn't meet the standards set forth in the law. This is a country of laws. Being noisy and rude isn't dangerous.

That fear you speak of didn't prove that he was a danger to himself or others. That's the law and this is a country of laws. That's fear of the odd, weird and out of place. He wouldn't behave at school, so they ran him off. The same thing McDonalds would do to a disruptive customer - have the cops run him off.

Was he hurting himself banging his head on the wall or with a chair? Did he attempt suicide at school? Did he ever lay a hand on another person? Not that I've heard about.

He seems to have liked the idea of education. He didn't go back and hurt anyone at school, did he?

But it's a fool's game to try and analyze a nutcase. Interesting, but in the end you'll never really know.
 
^^^ No, you don't! I've worked as a mental health professional for over 27 yrs, you don't have to violate any law(s) to be served a mental health hold. Law enforcement, medical professionals, a social worker, even a concerned family member or friend, can have someone served a hold under the right circumstances. Those revolve around the concept of "danger to self, or others"!

It's done each and every day, in virtually every American city....
 
I don't think a 72hr hold will get you banned from owning or purchasing a firearm. A 72hr hold is only a hold for evaluation and not legal grounds to consider you a nut job. Half the time if the person on the hold answers all the questions right they are out in a matter of hours and do not remain there for the allowed 72hrs. Now of the Doctors find that there are some mental health issues and that you are a danger to yourself or others then you have a hearing with a judge to have you comitted. If you're commited then it's entered into the system and you'll definatly be banned from purchasing another firearm.

DenaliPark is right though... Here in CO you do not have to have violated any laws to be placed on a mental health hold. All that has to be proven that at the time of the hold the person placing the hold can articulate that you are a danger to yourself/others or are gravely disabled and can not take care of yourself. I'm sure it's that way in most places around the country too.
 
They should let doctors
Click to expand...
That wound not be good. A couple summers ago I was getting a check up and my doctor asked me how much I drank. I told him a six pack of beer a week. He tells me I have an alcohol problem. Are you kidding me. I work 8 to 10 hours a day operating heavy equipment in 90+ degree weather in the summer, get home and grab a beer then hit the shower and I'm an alcoholic, go figure. I got a different doctor now.
My new doctor and I have gone out shooting a few times and we we stop and have a beer after were done.
 
"you don't have to violate any law(s) to be served a mental health hold."

Sure you do. The mental health laws pertaining to "a mental health hold" as you put it.

"Law enforcement, medical professionals, a social worker, even a concerned family member or friend, can have someone served a hold under the right circumstances. Those revolve around the concept of "danger to self, or others"!"

And where are those "right circumstances" written down? In the law. You have to meet the written standards to qualify for "a hold" or what we call a green warrant.

I'm not talking about speeding tickets and felony laws, I'm addressing the mental health laws. There are standards to be met. You can't just pick somebody up and lock them away for a 3-day evaluation because somebody feels like doing it.

Here's a place to start reading definitions, procedures and requirements in the Code of Virginia. http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+37.2-809
 
Last edited:
If you go to medical diagnosis instead of legal ruling you are starting down a very slippery slope aren't you?
Click to expand...
Yes.
And therefore, when the news reports that MANY individuals knew Jared was unstable and potentially dangerous, even to the point of making death treats, nobody did anything.
The ACLU has done a good job of making sure unstabe people don't get locked up.
I think the chain of evidence should have started with the sheriff going to a judge to get the perp Baker Acted, that's only good for 72 hrs, but at least a mental health professional would have been involved.
The sheriff looks bad on this. Most had no power, the sheriff dropped the ball.
Then there's the parents, they could have petitioned the court to get involved. Instead they protected him. (or thought they were)

Remember, we don't want a system where I can say, "I think John is acting crazy." and John gets locked up. Just think of the mayhem that would start.
 
Now I'm seeing reports that the sheriff denies the police knowing about any death threats made by the murder suspect.

The professor who made the 911 call to the police from the school reportedly said there weren't any threats made, just that everybody was uneasy about the guy's rambling speech.

I think we need some facts about the death threats, if there were any, other than the same blogger's quote repeated over and over.

John
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
How do federal laws work with updating NICS records after rights are restored?
Replies
5
Views
391
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
B
  • Locked
NY: Pistol Permit is no longer NICS check
Replies
10
Views
1K
Old Dog
Old Dog
J
  • Locked
H.R. 297: NICS Improvement Act of 2007...McCarthy at it again!
2 3
Replies
60
Views
3K
TooTaxed
T
J
  • Locked
NRA Members and HR 297 NICS Improvement Bill
2 3 4
Replies
77
Views
3K
Art Eatman
A
D
  • Locked
AG Mukasey: FBI Gun Ban List Doubles
2 3
Replies
71
Views
4K
BAT1
B
Back
Top