Mental health background checks for gun purchases

Nobody wants crazy people to own firearms. (Well, except maybe crazy people.) Elsewhere, I’ve read calls for requiring mental health background checks for gun purchases. Sounds reasonable, right?

Here’s the rub: In order to have mental health background checks, a purchaser’s mental health records must be available to BATFE. Criminal history is available to government agencies, and may even be on the public record. Medical records are not. And since virtually anyone can purchase a firearm, everyone’s mental health history would have to be available for checking by the government.

So how do you resolve the need to determine if a buyer has a history of mental illness, with the desire to keep mental health conditions private? (Right now, it’s up to the buyer to self-report on ATF Form 4473, Question 11-f; and there is nothing there about being treated for mental illness that has not been adjudicated, nor for voluntary commitment.)

At the risk of sounding like a clueless Brit, what’s the problem with simply giving the BATFE the access they need to these records? In order to (sort of) mollify those that are innately paranoid about anything “the Gub’mint” does, surely they can throw in some restrictions and provisos saying that *only *the BATFE can access them and aren’t allowed to share them with other Government departments, we pinky-swear, etcetera, etcetera…

I would think that would conflict with HIPAA laws.

We don’t have a National Health Service. Medical records are scattered among private insurers, doctors, government agencies for some, and who-knows-where-else. The government would have to set up a national medical database in order for the information to be used, and some people have a problem with that.

I think the fact that you want to own a gun should be a reason for a talk with a therapist. Instead of buying a gun to “feel safe” you could sit down and talk to someone about what it is that is making you feel unsafe and what you can do about it that does not involve acquiring a deadly weapon. If it is just “for fun”, why not just get an air-gun. It’s a lot cheaper and there’s no risk of you accidentally killing someone else or hurting yourself with it (ok fine, you might hurt yourself a little).

The idea of background checks etc is not very valid IMO. Looking into and solving the issue of why someone feels the need to have a gun in the first case seems more reasonable. It’s not “normal” or psychologically healthy. The fact that it is very common in the US does not make it reasonable.

Define “crazy”.

Is a cop treated for depression after a “good” shooting crazy?

If I know that my mental health medical records could one day be used against me, the obvious solution would be to avoid any interaction with mental health professionals.

You obviously do not understand why people want to own firearms. Perhaps you could start a thread to find out why, and be educated.

This thread is about how to resolve the demand for mental health background checks, with the demand for the maintenance of the privacy of medical records.

Darn, that sounds like a complete mess. I can see how it would be very tricky indeed for the BAFTE to even get their hands on the information they’d need. What’s the NRA’s suggested solution? They do have a suggested solution, right? Or are they just saying “We agree we need to keep guns away from crazies - shame there’s no way to do that - oh and by the way you should all buy more guns because a crazy person might have one and you’ll want to be able to defend yourselves…”

For the purposes of this thread (everyone knows, or should know, the the type of individual that should not own a firearm), having a mental condition that may lead to violent activity.

Temporary depression is different from clinical depression. I know at least one person who has been diagnosed with depression, and I think it should be considered a disqualifying condition requiring a waiver to buy a gun.

Then it comes down to the dealer saying, ‘I’m not comfortable selling a gun to you.’ If s/he sees anything wrong with the potential buyer at all.

We can have mental health background checks and less privacy, or we can have more privacy and forego mental health background checks. I don’t see how we can choose more than one.

The real question is if you think being treated for mental illness or voluntary commitment should be considered disqualifying. The law does not think so.

Good point.

But someone who privately goes to a doctor, or who voluntarily commits himself or herself, to treat, say, anger management issues, is probably someone you don’t want owning a firearm.

Possibly. I don’t think that’s a sufficient condition to forfeit a fundamental constitutional right.

Currently we have such poor reporting of what we already consider disqualifying that at a minimum that issue should be solved before we layer on additional reporting challenges. NICS reporting of disqualifying adjudication is poor at best.

You just can’t do it without licensing.

If you’re licensed, then the licensing control board doesn’t need to know your mental health history, they just need to be contacted by your doctor or mental health professional and told that you’re not allowed to own a firearm. Your license stays active in the database in case you want to appeal that decision. The appeals board can then look into your medical history, with your consent, but the general desk clerks will have no need to know the details.

Without licensing you’re asking the NICS background check to comb through your medical history (based on what, SSN?) and make an on-the-spot determination based on whatever crap they find. You’d have no way to dispute that finding because the NICS check is just a black hole; it’s not like you could submit your SSN and a lengthy explanation of why any mental health issues they find are no longer relevant.

Licensing would also solve the “terror watch list” problem that Obama has entered into the conversation, but that may be a topic for another thread.

I was diagnosed manic-depressive (now retitled “bipolar disorder”) in 1980 and paranoid schizophrenic in 1982. On neither occasion was I any more dangerous than you are, with or without a firearm.

I’m certainly not a public safety risk now. You could make Long Island a significantly safer locale by requiring that everyone with a gun place them in my hands for safekeeping.

Am I an outlier (or for that matter just a liar)? Are you inclined to think that it would still be better if people with a psychiatric track record were denied the right to bear arms, regardless of my above claims?

Treating people differently with regards to rights and liberties and social privileges should always be a highly questionable policy. There should be a compelling public benefit to doing so sufficient to outweigh people’s right to be treated on the same basis as their neighbor.

Most people who have received a psychiatric diagnosis are not dangerous by any estimate — they have no history of violence or threats, their own psychiatrists don’t consider them dangerous of potentially inclined to do violence by reasons of psychotic delusional-thinking processes, psychotic emotional-instability processes, or plain old ordinary nonpsychotic belligerent short-temper antisocial sorts of processes.

Most people who have received a psychiatric diagnosis are far more likely to be the victims of violence. In fact there is now significant evidence that the precipitating cause of people being eventually given a psychiatric diagnosis is their victimization at the hands of other people. (I’m willing to go dig up cites if requested but you should be able to establish the veracity of this claim on your own, with no possibility of cherry-picking on my part, with Google and a few moments’ research).

Even people who have both a psychiatric diagnosis and the opinion of their psychiatrists that they are dangerous are not solidly and reliably more likely to commit violent acts than the rest of you are. (Or, to restate, psychiatrists have a pretty abysmal success rate when it comes to predicting dangerousness).

Things you should contemplate while considering the issue:

• You don’t pick up the local paper and read that the branch manager of Citibank who has increased the investments to lower middleclass homeowners is a paranoid schizophrenic. Not because he isn’t but because that information isn’t generally made available nor, even if the newspaper learns of it, is it considered appropriate material to print about him. You do, however, read about any psychiatric history of anyone who does commit violent acts, because then it is considered relevant by the newspapers.

• There’s no way to “keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill” without centralizing medical records, as is already pointed out above, and not merely centralizing them “for medical use only” but making them available to societal organizations to comb through and make decisions to restrict people’s liberties. I don’t want to overstate a “slippery slope” but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think that it might not be confined to psychiatric medical histories. Think about drug use and histories of addiction, or HIV status, or the use of medications that occasionally have certain cognitive side effects.

• I am not a 2nd Amendment hating gun control fanatic by any stretch of the imagination, but I’m also not sporting “I’m the NRA and I vote” buttons, and I can see the cynical side of political expediency at work here. Someone shoots up a bunch of people, you get two main reactions: ban the guns and end this gun violence; and lock up the loonies and end this craziness. The latter is a refrain that is often embraced by people who don’t much care for the “ban the gun” reaction. You don’t need to be a gun-control advocate to see that that’s true. Religious fundamentalists with connections to ISIS who use automatic weapons won’t be curtailed by laws designed to restrict handguns from law-abiding citizens, I can see that quite clearly, but that doesn’t mean some pro-NRA types are not loudly shouting about locking up the psycho nutcases who have mental health diagnoses.

Perhaps it is you who don’t understand the underlying psychological mechanisms that leads to your behavior, and instead you rationalize what is in essence a repressed fear that is causing pathological behavior?

Someone who enjoys trap/skeet shooting has repressed fear that is causing pathological behavior?

I am strongly opposed to the idea of mental health background checks as a prerequisite for gun ownership. I think it’s a massive and unacceptable invasion of privacy, I think it’s going to discourage people who need medical treatment from getting it, and I think it further misrepresents and stigmatizes people with mental illness-- witness the way you yourself characterized people with mental illness in “Nobody wants crazy people to own firearms. (Well, except maybe crazy people.)”. I think it’s a red herring which detracts from the real problem-- dealing with people who don’t know or don’t care how to use guns safely (which would reduce accidental gun deaths), and dealing with people who commit or plan to commit acts of violence (which would reduce intentional gun deaths).

AHunter3: I did not mean to imply that anyone who is mentally ill should be denied access to firearms. The problem is, I’m not a psychiatrist or psychologist. The fact is that there are mentally unstable people who should not have a gun, and many of them have medical histories that would make their condition known. The clinically depressed person I know would not hurt another person, buy might commit suicide. (I don’t think so, but it’s a possibility.) Another person may have anger management issues and, as shown by such people as the guy who shot a cinema patron for browsing on a cell phone, are more likely to pose a danger to society.

What I’m looking for here is how to keep mentally ill people from buying guns, not which mental illnesses are disqualifying.

[Emphasis mine]

You realise you have just you have just called me mentally ill. I find that insulting.

I think required reporting into NICS is how to do it.