The Va. Tech shooter should have been barred from buying guns under existing law.

than you either read wrong or havent been paying attention.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3052278

A court found that Virginia Tech killer Seung-Hui Cho was "mentally ill" and potentially dangerous. Then it let him go.

In December 2005 — more than a year before Monday's mass shootings — a district court in Montgomery County, Va., ruled that Cho presented "an imminent danger to self or others." That was the necessary criterion for a detention order, so that Cho, who had been accused of stalking by two female schoolmates, could be evaluated by a state doctor and ordered to undergo outpatient care.

According to the "Temporary Detention Order" obtained by ABC News, psychologist Roy Crouse found Cho's "affect is flat and mood is depressed.

"He denies suicidal ideation. He does not acknowledge symptoms of a thought disorder," Dr. Crouse wrote. "His insight and judgment are normal."

That information came to light two days after Cho, a Virginia Tech senior, killed 32 people and then himself in a shooting rampage on the university's campus.

'An Imminent Danger to Himself'

The evaluation came from a psychiatric hospital near Virginia Tech, where Cho was taken by police in December 2005, after two female schoolmates said they received threatening messages from him, and police and school officials became concerned that he might be suicidal.

After Dr. Crouse's psychological evaluation of Cho, Special Justice Paul M. Barnett certified the finding, ordering followup treatment on an outpatient basis.

On the form, a box is checked, showing that Cho "presents an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness."

Immediately below it was another box that is not checked: "Presents an imminent danger to others as a result of mental illness."

Authorities said they had no contact with Cho between then and Monday's mass killings.

 

What makes you say that? I think I don't agree with Ottomaton on gun control laws, but his posts are usually well thought-out and he tries to back his opinion with facts instead of attacking the person he argues with.

 

I don't think there's any question that the system is broken. That much is obvious. I think enforcing the laws we already have is a good start.

My point is that if a person is found incapacitated by a judge in a guardianship proceeding...as long as that person can find a way to a gun shop, it's my understanding he can still buy a gun. And I've seen nothing to indicate otherwise. The question of whether he's a danger to himself or others isn't a part of the form doctors fill out in a guardianship proceeding in Texas.

 

Tying this back to the other thread about the government tracking medical records. I'm not very comfortable with the idea about a publically accessible database of people's mental health records. At the same time though I given the circumstances of what happened at V-Tech regarding keeping the mentally ill from getting firearms.

 

I've disagreed with Ottomaton on a few occasions but he is a one of the most well informed posters here and backs up his assertions with facts.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/24/gun.loophole/index.html

• Only 22 states, including Virginia, put any mental-status entries into the database


The feds require that information be reported if found to be a danger to himself or others. In Texas I can tell you that the forms physicans fill out for mental status examinations do not even have questions regarding whether the person is a danger to himself or others.

The enforcement of this is difficult.

 

^ Just to clarify. Is the mental status information in publically accessible databases court ordered judgements, such as a court order for someone to submit to treatment, or is it doctors records?

I have a hard time seeing how doctors' records short of a court order can be in a public record as that would violate doctor patient confidentiality.

 

mental status exams become public record, usually, in the context of guardianship proceedings where the person's capacity is at issue.

but just because ONE doctor finds a person incapacitated, doesn't mean that will carry the day. another one might completely disagree. it often becomes a battle of the experts with the attorneys fighting over who can get to the more respected doctor in the county.

i've dealt with these cases quite a bit, as one of my partners is board certified in estate planning and probate. as i said, i'm completely unaware of any reporting by the Harris County probate courts to federal gun registry databases.

 

^ If its a matter of public record then it would make sense that should be information on for a gun registry database. I would be more concerned if they are putting information that hasn't otherwise been in the public record.

 

Aren't mental issue records medical, therefore how are they available in a background check. seems like a nice law but unenforcable.

edit: I guess this has already been discussed.

 

agreed...but apparently that isn't making it into the registry.

 

To be clear, the following conditions make it illegal for a person to buy or own a gun:

1. If you have been convicted or are under incitement of a felony.
2. If you are a fugitive from justice.
3. If you use or are addicted to a controlled substance (illicit drugs).
4. If you are mentally incompetent or ever have been sent to a psychiatric hospital.
5. If you have received a dishonorable discharge from the military.
6. If you are subject to a restraining order.
7. If you've been convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence.
8. If you've renounced US citizenship.
9. If you are an illegal alien.

Until the 'Brady Act' in 1994, the buyer was responsible for certifying that they met all conditions. The Brady Act included a very specific mechanism for checking the existing master FBI database at the National Crime Information Center to see if the buyer is disqualified. It did not create a new database, only a mechanism to check the existing one when people buy guns. The existing FBI database only covers conditions #1, #2, #6 & possibly #7. I don't believe the National Crime Information Center is even particularly interested in tracking things like mental health issues.

There is no current database mechanism to cover checking the other conditions. The answer is to probably create a new, separate NICS database, but some of the remaining disqualifications, like the being 'addicted to drugs' are very difficult to quantify and record with accuracy. I think you would also need to set up a way that people can appeal records in a hypothetical NICS secondary database, as I don't think the data would necessarily be as free from error as the Crime Records.

To make the new database would require a new law. The problem I see with this is that when you start talking about new gun legislation, I think it would very quickly get a number of other gun legislation issues attached (for instance the prohibition on magazines that carry more than 10 rounds) and the bill would very quickly turn into a general pro/anti gun battle. My understanding is that this might not be as easy a sell as you would think after the change in leadership in Congress, and an issue which everybody agrees on, preventing mental patients from getting guns, might quickly turn into a different battle altogether.

Finally, I don't want to make a big deal of it, but thanks two the two who came to my defense earlier in the thread. It means a lot to me when people that I respect do that and I appreciate it.

 

To be clear, you still are a poopoo head.

 

So we're just now talking about changing law in Texas for this.

So right now...in the State of Texas...you can be found mentally incapacitated...in need of a guardian...unable to care for yourself...AND CAN STILL WALK TO ACADEMY AND BUY A FREAKING GUN.

ridiculous.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4770277.html

May 3, 2007, 5:44AM
Bill would require info about gun buyers' mental health


By PEGGY O'HARE
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle


Prospective gun buyers have long been subject to background checks when they try to purchase firearms from federally licensed dealers.

But, despite a widely held and erroneous belief to the contrary, Texas — like many other states — does not supply any mental health information about its residents to the federal agency that performs those checks.

State Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, is making another attempt to change that. A bill he introduced last month — before the mass shootings at Virginia Tech reignited the debate over the availability of guns — would require Texas to hand over the names of residents ordered by courts to be committed to hospitals for inpatient mental health care.

The bill also would require Texas to disclose the identities of mentally r****ded people committed by courts for long-term placement in residential care facilities, incapacitated adults with court-appointed guardians and defendants found incompetent to stand trial.

Ellis called it "a matter of good public policy."

"It just makes good sense to have a way of tracking whether these people have guns," he said.

Ellis' proposal would not go as far as Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine went this week in expanding the types of mental patients that must be reported to the federal database used to conduct background checks on gun buyers.

Kaine closed a loophole in his state on Monday by requiring even those patients mandated to get outpatient treatment to be reported.

After gunman Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people and himself at Virginia Tech, it was revealed that a judge had previously ordered Cho to get outpatient treatment.

But because Cho was not actually committed to a hospital, his name was never entered into the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System and he was later allowed to buy a gun.


Patient privacy one issue
Ellis' bill would not require Texas to disclose the names of people getting outpatient care or those who voluntarily commit themselves to a hospital without a mandate from a court.

Still, some gun rights groups and advocates for the mentally ill are concerned that Ellis' proposal may violate people's privacy and constitutional rights.

The National Mental Health America's board of directors since 2000 has opposed any proposal that would allow law enforcement to access people's confidential medical records or could compromise mentally ill people's rights.

"Our concerns are patient privacy — it's a challenging issue," said Lynn Lasky Clark, president and CEO of the advocacy group's Texas office.

"There could be barriers to people seeking treatment if they know this information is going to go into a database."


Recent violence here
Houston attorney Donald Burger, a gun owner and Second Amendment supporter, sees a potentially dangerous trend of enacting preventive laws.

"I am saddened by how fast some people are willing to give up their liberty and rights so they can experience a false sense of security," said Burger, who handles personal injury, business and probate litigation.

The Texas State Rifle Association, which is affiliated with the National Rifle Association but has its own membership, is waiting to see any alternative version of Ellis' bill before taking an official position, said its legislative director, Alice Tripp.

The proposal is virtually identical to a measure Ellis introduced in 2005.

Even if it had been approved then, it would not have stopped the gunmen behind the recent murder-suicides at NASA's Johnson Space Center and at a Galleria-area apartment complex. Houston police have found no evidence that either gunman had ever been committed by a court to a hospital or granted a court-ordered guardian.

Federal law has long prohibited dealers from selling guns to anyone who is mentally ill, but the FBI does not actually require states to submit people's mental health histories to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, said Joey Hixenbaugh, the system's unit chief.

Whether to disclose such information is left up to individual states and law enforcement agencies, he said.

Only 22 states now share such mental health data with federal authorities, said Sherre Baker, an analyst who works with the NICS database. Many states that do not, including Texas, cite privacy laws or other measures.

As a result, the database turns up information on a Texan's mental health history only if that person has been charged with a criminal offense and is found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity, Baker said.

Otherwise, unless a Texas gun buyer willingly discloses a mental health history on a federal application to buy a firearm, the agency likely will never know about it.


'It's the rational thing'
Another Houston gun enthusiast said he was surprised to learn Texas doesn't disclose any mental health history about its residents.

"I do realize mental health (dysfunction) is an illness — but that doesn't necessarily mean (its victims) should also have free access to possession of guns," said Joe Staples, a member of a local rifle club.

Staples said he has no problem giving federal authorities the names of Texans determined by a judge or a qualified doctor to be a danger to themselves or others.

"To me, it's the rational thing — and I would have thought it would have been the routine thing," Staples said.

How much impact Ellis' proposal would have on gun control is debatable, observers say.

For instance, William Arthur Phillips Jr., 60, a contractor who killed a co-worker and himself at NASA's Johnson Space Center last month, cleared a background check when he purchased his weapon from a Carter's Country store in Pasadena in March. There are no indications he ever sought any sort of mental health treatment, said Lt. Larry Baimbridge of the Houston Police Department's homicide division.

And Howard "Dave" Thurm, 48, who shot and wounded a tenant, then killed a manager and himself at a Galleria-area apartment complex last month, purchased his gun from an Academy store on the Southwest Freeway in 2005, around the same time he was under a psychiatrist's care.

But there is no evidence he was ever committed to a hospital, said HPD homicide Sgt. Brian Harris.

Those who visit psychiatrists of their own accord, seek treatment without a court order or are committed to hospitals strictly for evaluation are not reported to the national database.

Such circumstances would not be enough to disqualify someone from buying a gun, federal officials said.

 

they can propose all the gun control laws in place they want (and thats a vague "they" no one in particular is meant) but those laws dont mean squat if they arent enforced and i think the reasoning that having more laws would mean more enforcement is flawed.

 

if you're gonna have a database, at a minimum you should have that database include information on prior convictions and whether or not the person has already been determined to be mentally incapacitated.

 

i agree. I assume the basic principles are there they just have to use it...creating more laws wont help them use it.

 

no. texas needs some legislation to prompt the reporting of the mental health data. as i said earlier in this thread, i was reasonably certain that probate court judges in harris county were NOT reporting incapacity findings to a national firearms database. apparently there's not legislation forcing them to do so here.