Continuing make use of the information found in Pacific Standard Magazine, Nov/Dec, 2015: Among the states, while mental health data has remained sparse overall, some states have made it easier for the mentally ill to restore their gun rights than even the federal law would allow. The New York Times noted that in Virginia some people have regained rights to guns by doing nothing more than writing a letter to the state. There are Virginians who got their rights back just weeks or months after being hospitalized for psychiatric care. What are the numbers of Virginians whose gun ownership rights were restored? Unknown because no agency is responsible for keeping track.
Nonetheless, despite the limitations of the mental health database throughout the country, some gun control advocates still see it as better than nothing. Apparently, for some it is a case of beauty in the eye of the beholder. The status of gun control affecting the mentally ill is well described by Ben Wolfgang, in Gun control debate at standstill despite agreement on restrictions for mentally ill, The Washington Times, October 1, 2015. “Across the country, from statehouses to Capitol Hill to federal courtrooms, the debate over whether students should be able to carry firearms on campus, whether the nation needs to rein in gun rights in the name of public safety and how to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill continues with little in the way of progress.” He goes on to describe the frustration felt by those who try to come up with a sensible set of laws to deal with the mentally ill. “In 2013, a coalition of senators tried to enact background check measures in the wake of the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. Although the measure garnered a small level of bipartisan support, it ultimately died amid strong opposition from the National Rifle Association and other groups.
Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin, who is overseeing the investigation of the Oregon campus shooting, was among those opposing the legislation. He sent a letter to Vice President Joseph R. Biden in 2013 after the Sandy Hook shooting, saying he and his deputies would refuse to enforce new gun control restrictions “offending the constitutional rights of my citizens.”
After Newtown, the NRA rolled out its own plan to post armed guards at the nation’s schools, arguing that a “good guy with a gun” is the only way to stop a deranged shooter bent on killing innocent people. That makes sense, but the idea has gone nowhere. On college campuses, lawsuits are being filed challenging restrictions on carrying guns while others are openly defying laws allowing firearms on campus. Ben Carson, a retired neurosurgeon running for president, said that the focus should be entirely on mental health, not on gun laws. That has gone nowhere as well. For one thing, identifying the mentally unstable and preventing them from buying guns has proved to be a complicated and serious challenge throughout the country. For example, Sen. John Cornyn (Rep. Texas) proposed a bill in Congress to strengthen federal background check systems, strengthening mental health treatment programs to treat the mentally ill, and would require court action before barring gun purchases by veterans declared incompetent by the Veterans Affairs Department thus effectively making it easier for seriously mentally ill people to access guns because states and the VA system are not going to be enthusiastic to go through even more rigmarole related to mental health treatment and veterans rights to have guns (incidentally). On a countrywide scale, the NRA once favored having gun dealers turn over sales records to police and creation of a one-day waiting period between buying a gun and physically taking possession of it—two provisions that the NRA opposes today.
Source: Mother Jones
Another article in Mother Jones discussed the problems facing legislators, law enforcement officers, the courts, and mental health workers to determine which if any mentally ill persons should be allowed to carry a firearm. “The specific disqualifications related to mental health are quite narrow. Under federal law, an individual is prohibited from buying or possessing firearms if they have been “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to a mental institution.” A person is “adjudicated as a mental defective” if a court — or other entity having legal authority to make adjudications — has made a determination that an individual, as a result of mental illness: 1) Is a danger to himself or to others; 2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs; 3) Is found insane by a court in a criminal case, or incompetent to stand trial, or not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. A person is “committed to a mental institution” if that person has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution by a court or other lawful authority. This expressly excludes voluntary commitment. If a person falls under one of these two categories, they are prohibited from purchasing and possessing firearms for life — although federal law now allows states to establish procedures for such individuals to restore their right to purchase or possess firearms. Many states have done so at the behest of the National Rifle Association, with questionable results.
“There is no guarantee, however, that a formal record of adjudication or involuntary commitment will find its way into the NICS [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] database. Often disqualifying mental health records go unreported by the states. In Colorado, for example, only about 1% of people who have disqualifying mental health histories have been reported to NICS.
“Another problem is that few Americans suffering from serious mental illness ever come into contact with the “system” or receive treatment for their condition(s). According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), approximately 10% of children and adolescents suffer from mental illnesses. Yet only 20% of this group have been diagnosed and are receiving services. Looking at adults, approximately 1 in 17 live with a serious mental disorder such as schizophrenia, major depression, or bipolar disorder. Yet less than one third receive mental health services.”
In the next blogpost in this series, I will discuss efforts to solve the thorny problems of protecting the public from deranged individuals with guns while still protecting their rights under the constitution.