NICS is not working
An Associated Press article reports that which most of us already suspected in regards to John Russell Houser’s possession of a handgun that he used last week in a Lafayette, Louisiana theater to murder two women and injure nine others before offing himself.
Houser was denied a concealed weapon permit by the local sheriff in 2006 because of charges against him about arson and domestic violence, even though he hadn’t been convicted of those charges. In 2008, he was involuntarily committed to a mental health facility by a judge, but it appears that information was never entered into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, upon which rests the safety and security of the American public.
Looking back at the shootings that have been in the media lately, it seems that the people who are the gatekeepers between nuts and their ability to purchase guns are failing us.
Jared Louchner, the fellow who shot Congresswoman Gabriella Giffords along with several others had numerous encounters with local authorities, but they never bothered to arrest him for his behavior, so when he went to buy a pistol, he sailed through the NICS process.
In Aurora, Colorado, James Holmes was being treated for his disorders by a professional who didn’t bother to tell anyone else that he was a public danger, so he was able to purchase several firearms and thousands of rounds of ammunition without even a peep from the NICS folks.
At Virginia Tech, Seung-Hui Cho had been treated since his junior high school days for anxiety disorders, he was ordered by a judge to treatment when he was caught stalking two girls at Virginia Tech, but because he wasn’t institutionalized, his disorders weren’t reported to the NICS folks.
At Sandy Hook, Adam Lanza had been treated for his mental illnesses for years, but again it was unreported to NICS and if he hadn’t been too impatient to wait out his three-day cooling off period, he probably would have been able to buy a gun instead of murdering his mother and stealing hers.
In Charleston, South Carolina, Dylann Roof lied on his federal firearms form, and because the report of his arrest for drug abuse and drug possession hadn’t yet made it to the folks at NICS, his purchase of a firearm was delayed only one day.
So, we now have people in Congress and local legislators calling for more extensive background checks for folks who buy firearms, you know, even though it is the system is broken, so we have to make sure that people who are legally allowed to buy guns must jump through more hoops, while the folks with evil intents won’t bother themselves with that process.
If I was a legislator, I’d find a way to force the healthcare and law enforcement communities do their jobs before I heap more restrictions on Americans. But, I’m not.
Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists
John you need to either stop making sense or get yourself to Washington and start straightening those folk out.
I remember being taught in school those many moons ago that the country was founded on an “innocent until proven guilty” basis. It seems more and more that the decent citizens have to jump through more and more hoops to prove they are innocent while the less than innocent ones don’t have to do anything.
HIPAA allows for doctors to notify law enforcement when patients are deemed to be threat to themselves and others. (c.f. Privacy Rule at 45 CFR § 164.512(j))
This would mean that there should be no barriers, but someone along the way is slacking off.
John S. – Its not just someone, its a whole bunch of someones. In regards to the reporting of mental health issues, I find MH providers and BH providers to be most reluctant to report a diagnosis that involves potential harm to self or others. Even after the Aurora Colorado shooting the Dept of Health and Human Services, Civil Rights Dvision issued guidance stating that a provider who reports a concern involving a patient that may represent a risk of harm to self or others will not bee considered to have violated HIPPA. Still MH and BBH providers drag their feet more out of fear of professional liability I think, because after all, we do live in a society where you can be frivolously sued by anyone for just about anything nowdays.
Maybe if the police didn’t have a habit of then going to these un-well people’s homes and killing them, the care providers would be more willing to report them.
I agree with Jonn in spirit, but this NICS/Psych reporting question troubles me; not the reporting requirement, that I get. It’s the potential for over-reporting that concerns me. The motivations for over-reporting might vary from the innocent (misdiagnosis) to the practical (desire to avoid liability for not reporting), to the malicious (dislike of the patient or guns in general).
After all, gun ownership is a right just like free speech, religion and security. It shouldn’t be taken away without due process of law, so I’m not sure I agree with the idea that the mental health professional’s evaluation should be required – or even allowed – to be included in a NICS check.
Please don’t misunderstand me: I don’t want nut-jobs to have ready access to weapons either, and I don’t claim to have the answer. I just don’t want our solution to contain the 2nd Amendment’s seeds of destruction.
We appear to think much alike. See below.
I see that. Yours is much better written though. Thanks for taking the time.
Seems to me that the more legislation the idiots in WDC pass, the less effective it becomes.
But what do I know?
They are legislators. The only thing that they can do is legislate — pass laws. If we the people keep calling them and demanding that they “do something” they are going to do the one thing that they can do – pass a law.
As someone pointed out, they could repeal a law but the process for doing that is — you guessed it — passing a law.
I suppose that it reveals how ignorant I am but I for one would like fewer laws. I’m not sure that I would REALLY like that or how to get there but in the face of the huge mass of laws that we have now, it seems appealing to me.
We should make a law that forces people to report things to NICS. Maybe include a law that makes it illegal to shoot people, too.
How about a law that makes carjacking illegal? And robbing banks?
We need a law that makes it illegal to violate a law.
We need a law that outlaws stupid…..
Thunderstixx wins this round!
Outlaw stupidity and it would be IMPOSSIBLE to build and maintain enough jails and prisons to handle the overflow. On the bright side, we could imprison at least ninety percent of all pols and bureaucrats!
Sorry, Jonn – not sure I completely agree with your last sentence.
LE is only part of the problem in reporting; courts are another (convictions, declarations of mental incompetence, involuntary commitments). And I foresee possible issues if the medical community becomes any more involved.
I’m wary “forcing the healthcare community” in general do “do their job” with respect to guns.
From there, it’s only a few steps to doctors routinely reporting people who come in to see them and say they’re “feeling down” or “feeling blue”. Or for refusing to answer a doctor’s loaded and irrelevant questions unrelated to medical treatment (“uncooperative and combative”). Or reporting anyone who receives a prescription drug for depression (might shoot themselves), anxiety (might overreact), tranquilizers (possible anger issues), or other psychoactive drugs.
Some will take the “better safe than sorry” approach, if for no other reason than legal liability, and report all such. In that case, you’re talking allowing mental health professionals essentially “carte blanch” authority to override the 2nd Amendment on a case-by-case basis – without anything remotely resembling “due process of law”.
That’s very different than what the LE and courts must do. LE reports felony arrests, and courts report involuntary commitments/declarations of incompetence/convictions. Those are matters of fact, where due process has already occurred (or where Federal law mandates a temporary suspension based on pending legal actions of a serious nature).
Sorry, but when it comes to firearms I no longer particularly trust the medical profession. Many of them are committed anti-gun types. And many government bodies are attempting to use “the public health issue” as a wedge for further efforts to erode the 2nd Amendment.
YMMV. But I’ve said it before: before one loses a fundamental right explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution, due process of law is required. And “physician’s opinion” is NOT equivalent to “due process of law”.
Note that, prior to my induction into the United States Army, I spent YEARS locked up in a state mental hospital, much of it confined in a maximum security ward for the criminally insane.
Following my honorable military service, I was variously employed as a police officer, firefighter/emergency medical technician, and correctional supervisor at the state prison.
I have a current firearms permit, and wear my concealed service revolver everywhere I go.
I don’t know if I would put that out here for mass consumption John. With the eyes we have on this site right now I can imagine that someone with less than honorable intentions could cause you a bit of hell with only a few phone calls and maybe a couple of emails.
I am not crazy about your singing, but I am on your side and have your six on things like this.
There is always the threat of adverse actions by Social Justice Warriors seeking retaliation for my open defiance of political correctness.
That’s what got me kicked out of the Armed Forces Retirement Home, which resulted in the loss of many of my personal possessions.
But, this is the world we now live in, and these forces must be opposed.
If no one dares to stand against them – – – ?
And, of course, my own story needs to be told, lest the horror of that particular tyranny be repeated within the psychiatric profession.
Do you mean to tell me that not everyone likes my music?
Oh, whatever shall I do?
I so wanted to become a multi-millionaire, with oodles of adoring female admirers!
Oh, I’m so disappointed.
My ego is plumb deflated.
Hondo,
Wasn’t there a thread not too long ago about doctors asking patients if they had guns in their homes? Seems to me I remember something about this topic not too long ago and it definitely struck a wrong chord with me.
I get it, a lot of people think guns hurt people. They want to blame an inanimate object instead of face the truth that there are bad people in this world.
Sadly there are bad people and it’s become too easy to ignore them and say “not my business”. Unfortunately a lot of people feel they have to be in your business when you disagree with their way of thinking.
Which way do we go? Leave everyone alone or get in everyone’s business? I think this country needs to get back to small town USA where everyone in town knows everyone and no one is cut slack from the beginning. A time when right and wrong wasn’t determined by laws that limited peoples freedom, but instead was determined by the common sense of everyone that knew you and if you stepped one toe over the line you moved it back right quick before anyone noticed (but they usually did) because you were held accountable for your actions.
Wish I knew exactly how to proceed, Chief. I truly wish I knew.
But I can’t help feeling that we have to deal with reality, not some fantasy Nirvana that has never existed and which likely never will. And I can’t help but think that a right that is fundamental – e.g., the right to protect oneself – should not be taken away from ANYONE without careful consideration and court action, AKA “due process of law”.
Because if you allow someone to make that decision unilaterally, without the normal due process that a legal proceeding provides, I have three questions for you.
1. Who makes those decisions?
2. What criteria will they use?
3. And, perhaps most importantly: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
The more laws a society has, the less civilized it is.
What is potentially even worse is the use of expanded mental health laws like some conservatives and progressives are asking for could lead to the politicization of psychology. It has happened plenty of times over the eons where the need to lock up those politically dissenters because they are “crazy” to complain about the current form of government or its leaders. Can you imagine it happening here…..oh wait…http://www.newsweek.com/judge-orders-dsouza-receive-psychological-counseling-353554 it is happening again and has happened before.
Now wait just a damn minute!
You’re not gonna sit there and tell me that a program that is mandated by the government and ran by the government doesn’t work because the government isn’t running it right. That’s just crazy!
E-6 type, 1 ea –
Blasphemy!!! Are you really trying to piss off the volcano god? Someone fetch a virgin we must appease the angered god of lava, that and we could really use the rain.
The one time we need Lars and he’s nowhere to be found. Pity.
Well that money has been diverted to help provide Obama phones and to house and feed Central American illegal immigrants…
And don’t forget to get gun bans in place mayhem must rule first…
That out of the big bird play book
No gun used by this lunatic, yet the end result is the sam.
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/breaking/2015/07/25/phoenix-police-decapitated-body-dogs-suspect/30675073/
Ban knives all knives must be banned don’t forget those scary black guns also. I’m soooo scared..
Where is Nancy Polosi when you need her… LMAO ! ! ! !
BHWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ! ! !
Haven’t read all the comments yet, so please forgive me if this has already been addressed.
The real problem isn’t that crazy people are lying on forms or that some bureaucrat isn’t logging things in properly – the problem is that crazy people are not kept in an environment that protects the rest of us from them whether they use guns, knives, axes, cars or something else entirely to harm us. They are nuts. Only the delusional expect them to act any other way.
Who cares if drug XYZ successfully treats the mental issue 98.7% of the time? If the drug is not administered under supervision it will never work and could actually cause great harm both to the patient and to the rest of us.
No, I do not want mental patients treated inhumanely. I do want them protected from themselves and the rest of us protected from them. Who decided that putting our nuts on public display makes sense for them or us?
Who decides who is crazy? I mean it and honestly look at the history of psychology and it’s health care being uses as a political tool against opponents of the regime in charge? The Soviets were infamous for this, but dig through some of the local history of your own town or biggest city in your state. You will find folks that were dissenters to the current political process (either for or against democracy) and they were locked away in mental health establishments to protect the power of the throne. It’s a fine line we would have to cut and to an extent I want to err on the side of liberty than give the tools to make my noose to a tyrant
Nobody said it would be easy. We already know the pitfalls to avoid, if we read history. So because there are subjective areas in the middle which could potentially be abused, we should ignore the obvious ones?
If you have a better system than locking up the obvious failures currently running the streets, please give it to us. In the meanwhile, would it be OK if the rest of us develop a system whereby a court could order would remove the obvious crazies from our midst?
If you had ever had to deal with nuts who freeze to death in the winter because their brains just don’t function on a plane that allows them to figure out how to care for themselves on the most basic level, you just might understand where I am coming from. I find it horridly cruel that we condemn our citizens to inhumane and impossible situations because caring for them properly is hard.
I fully understand where you are coming from and to be honest if this was a different era with regards to political discourse, well I would love to discuss and debate the idea of quick mental health adjudications and lock up for the crazies out there. Yet, in this post John Doe warrant raid era and IRS targeting of individuals that chose to express even thier 1st amendment rights let alone thier second. I just don’t feel comfortable with the 2nd and 4th order effects of the ideas. There are multiple issued in this nation that cross streams and influence each other. So how do we fix one without destroying the other. I don’t know how we can fix it without hurting more to catch the minority.
I think this pretty well says it.
“Must be a yearning deep in human heart to stop other people from doing as they please. Rules, laws–always for other fellow. A murky part of us, something we had before we came down out of the trees, and failed to shuck when we stood up. Because not one of those people said: “Please pass this so that I won’t be able to do something I know I should stop.” Nyet, tovarishchee, was always something they hated to see neighbors doing. Stop them “for their own good”–not because speaker claimed to be harmed by it.”
R. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.
Heinlein’s writing was/is awesome. His version of representative democracy in Starship Troopers is the only system I like better than the one we have (or had?). Thanks for this quote and the name of the book. I’ll download it tonight.
Pretty sure you’ll like it. IMO it’s one of RAH’s two or three best works – the other being “Stranger . . . ” and “Time Enough . . . “.
Not sure it isn’t my personal favorite among his work.
“Starnger” – seriously? The hippie bible? wow.. just wow…
I’ll happily go with “Moon Is A Harsh Mistress” and “Starship Troopers”.. but would happily nominate any number of other better books than Stranger. “Methuselah’s Children”, “Time Enough”, Farnham’s Freehold”, “Glory Road”, or even “Double Star”…
Hippie bible? Seriously?
Heinlein began considering many of Stranger’s themes in his 1941 novella Lost Legacy and worked on the work that became Stranger on and off during the 1950s, finishing it in 1960. I seriously doubt he had anything “hippie-ish” in mind. Hell, it was finished between 4 and 5 years before the “Summer of Love”. By that point in time, Heinlein was quite conservative politically.
(An aside: like many young people, Heinlein was seduced by the false attraction of liberal causes as a young man; he even supported Upton Sinclair (!) when he ran for governor of CA as a Socialist in the early 1930s [yes, CA has been “Slouching Towards Socialism” for over 80 years now]. By the 1950s, he’d seen the error of those beliefs; in 1964, he worked on the Goldwater campaign. He was always a champion of individual rights and responsibilities, but over time saw that the “progressive” side of politics was merely giving that concept lip service. Damn smart man.)
In “Stranger”, Heinlein was addressing topics including the of the interplay of society, personal freedom, and responsibility; religion; power; and how society reacts to new ideas and causes. Last time I checked, the Hippies weren’t interested in much of anything beyond “If it feels good, do it.”
Yes, lots of hippies read Stranger and made a big hoohah out of it. I’d guess most didn’t actually comprehend even 25% of what Heinlein was trying to say.
Finished “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.” Still digesting it, but thoroughly enjoyed it. Hard to put down. Thanks for the tip.
Darn it! Not available for download. Looks like I’ll have to go “Old School” and get the paperback.
Maybe this will help? (smile)
http://www.is.wayne.edu/MNISSANI/RevolutionarysToolkit/TheMoonIsAHarshMistress.pdf
You are THE MAN!
Thanks.
Tom Kratman expands on the concepts of “Starship Troopers” in his “Carerra” series. (A Desert Called Peace, and several more. it takes a few to really get there, but the seeds are in the first book.)
Ok, he also lobs a few molotov’s into a bunch of cherished notions, while simultaneously showing how one might fight effectively against a fanatic homicidal foe.
You gotta like the writing of the guy who invents the “Tranzi Tree”. That is just, oh, malice with elegance.
Will have to check those out too. Thanks.
BREAKING NEWS:
In Cincinnati, Ohio, a man with a concealed carry permit defends his family from a 62 year old car jacker, who, with guns in both hands, opened fire on the man and his family, including a 1 year old baby.
http://www.fox19.com/story/29638058/man-62-accused-of-shooting-at-3-people-including-1-year-old
The NICS failures are a feature, not a bug.
You have no excuse to crack down, if the current system was actually working, right?