28 states virtually ignore mental health gun database

by: Paul Rosenberg

Tue Jan 18, 2011 at 16:30


Arizona, Up Slightly From Bottom, Is 1/20th of Top Registration Rate

Over the weekend, Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) issued a press release pointing out that 28 states have submitting less than 100 mental health records to the background check database for gun sales--a major flaw in the existing system that allowed Jared Loughner to slip through the cracks and buy two guns he should not have been able to purchase.  What's more, 21 states have submitted less than 10 such records, including 10 that have submitted none at all.

Arizona, perhaps surprisingly is not one of them--though it was as recently as four years ago, before a new law was passed that remains severely underfunded--about 1/20th the intended funding level.  But Arizona is still far below where it should be. The number of records Arizona has submitted--5,036--amounts to 78.8 per 100,000 residents, a rate less than 1/20th that of Virginia, the state with the highest level of compliance, which has submitted 139,185 records--1,739.6 per 100,000 residents.  Virginia's rate is almost double that of Michigan in second place--989.8 per 100,000--and more than double New York in third--799.7 per 100,000. This leaves more than a million records out of the system--one of the biggest flaws in the existing system.  From the press release:

The Tucson shooter, Jared Loughner, bought a shotgun and passed a background check less than a year after he was rejected from the Army in 2008 for habitual drug use. He should have failed the shotgun background check, but he didn't because his record wasn't in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). He went on to buy a second gun, which he used to murder 6 people and injure 13 others.

Federal law prohibits dangerous people including felons, the mentally ill, and drug users from buying or possessing guns. But these people too often slip through the cracks and pass background checks because many key records are not in the database. At Virginia Tech, Seung Hui Cho was declared mentally ill by a judge, thereby barring him from gun possession under federal law - but his record was never submitted to NICS. Cho was then able to pass a background check and buy the guns he used to kill 32 people.

In response to Virginia Tech, Congress unanimously passed the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, which was designed to improve reporting into the system. It requires that all federal agencies report relevant records into NICS, and it created a system of incentives for states to improve their reporting.

But federal data from August 2010 show there is a wide disparity in states' compliance.

The chart on the flip shows how state compliance stood in 2006, before the new law was passed, and how compliance stood as of August 31, 2010, and total records submitted by each state per capita.

In addition, the poll MAIG just released has three questions related to this issue, all of which show strong support for fixing it. Gun owners and the general public agree in equal numbers on all three questions asked:

  • 90% supporting fixing the gaps in government databases that are meant to prevent the mentally ill, drug abusers and others from buying guns
  • 89% support fully funding the enforcement of the law Congress passed after the Virginia Tech massacre to prevent people with a history of mental illness from buying guns
  • 83% support the broader proposition of fully enforcing gun laws currently on the books--which encompases both of the above.
A more detailed breakdown is also on the flip.
Paul Rosenberg :: 28 states virtually ignore mental health gun database

Clearly, more than half the states aren't even going through the motions.

The press release adds:

Counting additional submissions by federal agencies, the FBI reported total size of the NICS "Mental Defective/Committed" file to total 1,107,758 records, as of December, 31 2010. According to estimates from the General Accounting Office, at least another 1.5 million disqualifying mental health records are still missing from the file, as well as millions more missing records on various other types of prohibited purchasers....

Many states have made little or no progress reporting, largely because from FY 2009 through FY 2011 Congress appropriated only 5.3% of the amount authorized by the NICS Improvement Amendments Act in grants to states to improve reporting.

Actually, the GAO estimate is quite conservative.  If other states matched Virginia's rate, the database would have over 4.6 million records--just projecting from the 40 states that submitted any records at all.

Finally, MAIG calls attention to frustration of victims' family members:

The failure to promptly put all relevant records into the database has frustrated some family members of Virginia Tech victims.

"Although the number of records submitted to the federal gun background check system has increased since the NICS Improvement Act was enacted in January 2008, it is clear that the system is still broken, said Peter Read, Lt. Col., USAF (Ret.), father of Mary Read, who was killed at Virginia Tech. "It's been over 3 years since my daughter and 31 others were shot and killed at Virginia Tech because of a broken and inadequate background check system. Now, it has happened again. Enough is enough."

More information can be found by reading the Mayors Against Illegal Guns' letter calling for full funding of the NICS Improvement Act,  here.

Finally, here's the more complete breakdown of views on the three questions in the poll directly related to this issue:


Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

I have a lot of questions (0.00 / 0)
What agreement is there on how a mental health database ought to be compiled?  Does such a database have uses besides restricting gun ownership?  Should there be links to other lists such as the TSA no-fly list?  If the "war" on drugs disproportionately targets blacks, does excluding drug abusers add a hidden racial component to restrictions on a constitutional right to individual gun ownership?  Who else should be restricted from buying guns?  How would the left react if someone floated the idea of requiring proof of citizenship or legal residence in order to buy a gun?

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

The Database Aleady Exists. (0.00 / 0)
It's just extremely incomplete.

Please read a bit more carefully.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
I know it exists (0.00 / 0)
I am also aware that the incompleteness is partially due to no clear standard over what mental health problems should land someone on the list and the requirements of state privacy laws.

This doesn't just reduce to a problem of a common sense idea being underfunded.  The people get screwed if we constantly leave the details up to the lawmakers.  Is there some gun control or mental health activist who has come up with a clear list proposing which mental health problems should disqualify someone from gun ownership?  Shouldn't we be thinking about this micro level of policy at least some of the time?

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both


[ Parent ]
Evidence, Much? (0.00 / 0)
Or would that be just too unreasonable?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Yes, NAMI has addressed the issue in a sensible fashion, I believe: (4.00 / 1)
http://www.nami.org/Template.c...

I can't cut and paste from the piece, but they are largely favorable on California's laws here, which ban, for a five year period, the purchase of firearms to individuals who've been put on hold in a mental institution. After that, individuals are able to petition the court if they wish to purchase a gun. All in all, a very reasonable compromise which protects the public and individuals, but also allows for an individual who's been successfully treated to move on with their lives, as far as it relates to gun ownership anyway.

NAMI expresses concern for privacy here, but advocates for the mentally ill really aren't and shouldn't be interested in preserving the right of the mentally ill to harms themselves or others. Given that post-Loughner type tragedies are really the only time that the American public really considers the issue of mental health treatment in this country, eh, it's pretty stigmatizing for the rest of the mentally ill, who statistically are no more likely to commit violence than the rest of the population. I mean, have any of these incidents of violence ever resulted in improvement in mental health care in this country? To the contrary, the mentally ill get evaluated, by the media and public figures, in incredibly dehumanizing (and irrational!) terms after these incidents. It's hard for me- and I assume NAMI- not to believe that this dehumanization and lack of general coherence doesn't result in a continued apathy towards mental health care in this country. History sort of speaks for itself here.


[ Parent ]
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox