This message was self-deleted by its author

[HereSince1628]

14. Currently, a mentally ill person gets on it if a judge finds you prohibited for reasons of

Last edited Fri Jan 11, 2013, 09:13 AM - Edit history (1)

mental illness or defect, or if you have been _involuntarily committed_ to a mental hospital. A restraining order can also get you on the list and a restraining order could be made for mental health reasons and could include restrictions to gun purchase and access, it may even order a person to surrender any weapons owned.

States can make additions that are more inclusive...one that comes up regularly is _involuntary_ treatment with drugs for a mental conditions. The website does have a table of the state rules. I don't know if an involuntary 72 hour detention and assessment is currently a criterion in any state. It currently is not in Wisconsin

The instant background checks use additional databases to the NICS, including a database of criminal history called the Interstate Identifier Index (aka the "Eye-3&quot . That database goes some distance to filling the holes in the NICS data, but an assessment of the NICS system a couple of years ago by the federal Office of Technological Assessment suggested that between 17 and 20 million records of felony convictions (about 1/3) get missed.

There is much concern that the ways in which mentally ill persons will be added is going to be changed to be more expansive. The NRA is pushing hard on this angle as it is consistent with their long held meme guns don't kill, people do. But in the past 48 hours, Gabby Giffords, Barbara Boxer, Ed Schultz, and Micheal Moore have also made statements about getting more mentally ill on the prohibited list (currently prohibitions for mental illness rank #2 at 22% of the database,)
The state attorney general of WI has come out in favor of more mentally ill being reported, and he is backed up by a very NRA friendly, pro-conceal carry tea-party legislature and Governor. Some changes here will undboutedly be directed at identifying Wayne LaPierre's 'lunatics and monsters among us'.

There seems little doubt that things will change soon, the season for change is upon us.

Many organizations have been promoting and waiting for a political climate in which they can push for greater regulation of guns in the US. The database was set up as part of the Brady Act, an act named for Reagan's press secretary shot in an attempt on Reagan's life. The Brady Foundation is a powerful voice for gun control in DC and across the nation. It is pushing for greater restrictions on gun ownership you can visit their website and read all about their efforts. They will be an important player in producing the language of any new regulation. The organization of lawyers discussed in this OP are also pushing model legislation in states and at the federal level. Their interest is in reducing gun violence, concerns for the mentally ill are for them secondary.
Suicide prevention organizations are also interested in the issue of gun violence. Gun suicides are twice as common as gun homicides in the US. Arguments that mentally ill aren't dangerous must be made in the face of 17,000 successful gun suicides each year.

Changes to NICS reporting requirements can be made at both the state and the federal level, because both have authority to regulate gun purchases. State legislatures are often more reactionary than Congress. The efforts for expanding reporting of the mentally ill into NICS database will need to be watched and as necessary opposed at both levels.

It -is- possible to have your right to buy a gun restored if you've been adjudicated to be prohibited for mental health reasons. The first step is going back to court to get the ruling reversed. Then you appeal your status within the NICS database. An information page for how to do that is on the FBI NICS information website. I't unclear how a person would find out they are on NICS unless they attempt to buy a weapon. It may be possible, but I haven't yet run across that information. Comments I have read about challenging denials encountered at the point of purchase indicate that the identifying number of the permit request must be included in a challenge of a denial, a fee, and a copy of your fingerprints is suggested.

Regarding stigma. The rhetoric on DU about gun permits, gun violence and the mentally ill has certainly been uninformed as well as often highly stigmatizing. It's hard to imagine that language in communities across the country will be any different whether they are on the street, in the media or in state houses.

It is not a violation of HIPPA to report names of persons considered dangerous to self or others. HIPPA specifically exempts privacy rights from sharing for those purposes. Nonetheless, compliance is uneven across the country because of interpretations of HIPPA and other state privacy laws. Some states have lower compliance rates than others. I'd have to look to see how ADA and privacy rights engage each other. I'm still in the early part of learning about this topic.

I did my best with my limited knowledge to address you questions.

I'm not a lawyer I'm a person with some graduate degrees and a serious personality disorder. That means I have no special education guiding interpretation of meanings in commentaries on legal documents related to this issue. Moreover, I know what I know only from what's on the web, I don't have access to LEXUS search engines or an awareness of important legal keywords that might this self-education process more effective.