WASHINGTON — Despite its reputation as a state with strong gun-control laws, Massachusetts for more than a decade has not provided mental health records to an FBI database for gun background checks, the result of a 43-year-old state law prohibiting such sharing.
Massachusetts has submitted just one mental health record to the federal database since 1999 — apparently as a test — at the same time that the FBI has processed 1.6 million background checks of Bay State residents who seek to buy guns from federally licensed dealers. The situation has sparked concerns that firearms could fall into the hands of the mentally ill.
Comments
Question: Has any one of these mass killing lunatics, whether in Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Virginia Tech, et., had a mortgage? Answer: No. The banks usually (I know, not during the RE meltdown) do a pretty good check on credit and employment, which speak to mental and financial stability, before they grant a mortgage. Therefore, as Chris Rock said, make it a law that if you don't have a mortgage, you can't get a gun. Then,just to be doubly sure, charge $1,000 per round for the bullets that are discharged from automatic weapons (not hunting rifles). Then let the gun nuts get magazines with as many rounds as they want...but I can pretty much guarantee, they be walking around like Barney Fife, with that one bullet in their shirt pocket.
Wow, I really don't know what to say to that but wow.
This comment has been removed.
This is a no brainer. And it shows that the Massachusetts' legislators have no brains.
If you want the Mass legislature to enact this obviously necessary policy to protect us all, your legislator NEEDS TO HEAR FROM YOU that you want him or her to support it. Look up who your State Representatives and State Senators are at www.wheredoivotema.com and find their contact details. Email, call, or write your legislators a letter telling them your name and address and that you need them to support Rep. Linsky's gun safety bill. Then a few days later, do it again. Tell all of your friends to do the same. I have heard from elected officials that this is what needs to happen. If enough of us who want common sense safety measures in place demand them, then maybe they can occur.
Jeeze, it must be a pain when you do not have the NRA to do this stuff for you.......
So, sifting through this article. . . if a person was commited to a mental health facility in MA, the state would know about it when that person tried to get a license. Unless they went to a private facility. So the private facility types fall through the crack.
Then, if a person comes from another state that does not cooperate, and has been committed, they fall through the crack.
Of course, if the person never had contact with an institution, as most of these mass shooters don't, the whole discussion is pointless. The article points out that the Virg Tech shooter might have been flagged. That is good, no doubt. The question does remain as to whether he could have obtained weapons via other means, ie theft.
Using this database to make sure that mentally ill people do not buy guns is a great idea. But databases being what they are, the question becomes, what will the government want to use it for in the future? My social security card says "Not to be used for identification". Strange, that is EXACTLY what the government uses it for now. But they promised everyone back then it would not be used for that purpose, creating a national database of everyone. Sure, I think it is ok, but it shows that things change over time. When it comes to folks mental health records, I am not convinced there should be a national database.
Yes, there is a danger of those falling through the cracks from other states, but in MA's case, we also have a PC doing an "interview" for "suitability". Just what are the criterion of this interview? How the person is dressed? Looks? Skin color? Sex? I would think that the police are supposed to be figuring out if the applicant is a NUTJOB.
More grandstanding by Deval, more legislation that does very little other than to arguably violate rights to privacy. Of course, if gun owners do not go along with it, we are evil.
But remember, YOUR name will go in that database whether you want to buy a gun or not if you have contact with a mental health professional and that person decides you might be a danger.
Did I forget? This might also wind up like the "No Fly List" utter confusion, people banned because of similar names, etc?
History is just what, exactly? We're talking about the future here. Ride or get tossed from the train.
So, the "future" is putting all mental health patients records in a national database, keeping in mind that most of them will never purchase a firearm?
The challenge is "ride or get tossed from the train". How about we toss people with these kind of ideas from the train? That tossing works both ways.
This is difficult - if I have one lapse mentally, then I'm on the list. That does not mean I will have mental issues all my life - but it doesn't mean I won't. Let business do it.
Two ideas I have read resonate with me 1)require insurance - the insurance companies are all about statistics - they would demand proof of gun safety courses, storage issues, etc. and charge accordingly. The business world would solve this in days.
2) require an input data base system for purchases where info is entered w/photo. Businesses can do it in minutes - why can't gun control? The application to purchase would have to be approved before the final purchase could go through. All gun purchases/sales would be tracked by person. The Mental health dept could review all purchases and check against the list Before the gun is purchased.
Linda: BEFORE a person can get a license (required to purchase a gun here in MA), they have to attend a gun safety course. Those courses include proper storage of firearms. The laws have penalties, including fines and jail time, something an insurance company cannot do.
As to your second statement: When a license holder attempts to purchase a firearm, forms are filled out. Data is entered into the NICS systems. The license contains the buyers picture. No sale is completed until the Feds respond, this usually happens within minutes, but sometimes takes days.
When a license is issued, the person's mental health records were checked. However, I do not think they are checked after that, until the next time the license is renewed (five years). This is certainly something the state could do, without putting people in a national database.
Given that the relationship between mental health issues and gun ownership is likely close to 1:1, how hard could it be?
Should we impeach Obama on mental issues, he has freely admitted to using a gun, often. Even says he LIKES it, now that is scarey!
Darn that Obama! He ruins everything!
The only argument against background checks, against databases for mental health issues and criminal activity is simply paranoia. Not a reason to ignore a rational means of gaining control of weapons not falling into the hands of unstable or criminal elements. Will it be perfect? Of course not. Will there be cracks to fall through? Of course there will. As the saying goes let's not have perfection get in the way of the good.
No, Mr. Turk, paranoia is NOT the only argument.
This discussion isn't even about guns, it is about violating privacy rights, period. A non gun owner can be just as angry about this as a gun owner.
You also lumped criminal activity in there, no one is arguing about whether there should be a national database for criminals.
Criminals have commited an act that gets them into a database, deservedly so.
A mental health patient may or may not have commited an act. Secondly, psychiatrists are not 100% reliable. Third, many people going into that database will never buy a gun. Fourth, what gaurantee does anyone have that database will not be used for other purposes in the future.
Those cracks you talk about work both ways. A person can fall through the crack the other way and have his life ruined.
Don't even try to tell me about government guarantees, that is a joke.
As the saying goes "Let's not have anyone's rights get in the way of a good investigation, bust the door down, let's see what is in there!"
Mental health? What about plain ol' stupidity? Gun activists designated last Saturday “Gun Appreciation Day” in an attempt to highlight their opposition to gun safety laws. The PR stunt proved to be more of an embarrassment, however, when 5 people were shot at 3 different gun shows on Gun Appreciation Day. On Friday afternoon, an Iowa gun dealer closed out the week by becoming the sixth person shot at a gun show. The man claims he was “showing off a .25 caliber pistol he thought was unloaded when he slid the action of the gun.” The gun was not unloaded, and a bullet went through his left palm.
After this incident, police found a second loaded weapon on the wounded gun dealer’s table. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/26/1500431/for-the-sixth-time-in-one-week-man-shot-at-gun-show/
Or, there were 3 negligent discharges at 3 gunshows.
But, the fact is, as you point out, get stupid with a gun, you will get hurt and may injure/kill someone else.
Of course, what you do not point out is the millions of people attending and guns that were handled at those gun shows.
One of the incidents occured when a person attemped to clear his weapon before entering. Frankly, I do not go to gun shows because quite a few people who are not familiar with weapons attend. I don't like having muzzles pointed at me for several hours.
BTW, this sort of thing happens occasionally at gunshops, too, not just shows. And...even the police, who many of you think should be the ONLY ones to carry firearms regularly shoot themselves or other cops, just recently in Maine.
But do you have a point? People make dangerous mistakes all the time, ones that put themselves and others at risk.
My Point, Mr. Wonderful, was to Point out the irony of people getting shot on Gun Appreciation Day (I understand that irony is lost on obsessives). Just thought some of my fellow Northeasters (you know, the ones who caused Newtown, as yesterday you went to great lengths to declare) might get a kick out of, Darwin's law and all that. But hey you've made a decent point or two yourself here, today, I Loathe to admit, but I will. But don't get a swelled head or anything.
You say gun owners lobbied against more mental health disclosure. That's not what I have observed. Gun owners tend to want more disclosure of this sort. Every time a whack job like Seung Cho gets his hands on a gun it makes all legal gun owners look bad. The obstacles are the mental health professionals who know their businesses will suffer if they have to report schizophrenic patients to the FBI. Of course they couch this in the "sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship" but call me skeptical. It's about making payments on their second home in the country.
Typical of the law, screw law abiding citizens who own firearms so lawyers can earn big bucks defending those whose crimes could have been prevented with medical care. What is next by the irrational left in their bid to disarm Americans.