Tapsearch Com EditorVirginia Tech shooter's background check did not include mental health issues
April 19th 2007 00:00
Yesterday, based on the information available, I made a tentative case that common gun control measures could not have prevented this shooting. I worked on two assumptions I conceded might change with new information: He bought the gun from a licensed dealer and had no documented mental health issues severe enough to disqualify him from gun ownership.
The first assumption proved right, and he even passed a background check. But it turns out that "a temporary detention order was issued resulting in Cho being sent to a mental health facility independent of the university."
The problem here is that the right to medical privacy often prevents important mental health information from getting into the federal government's instant background check system.
According to Firearms Law Center:
I'm not sure if a "temporary detention order" counts as "committed," which the ATF defines as "a formal commitment" by a "lawful authority." It does not include someone in an institution "voluntarily" or for "observation."
At any rate, whether the guy's commitment barred him from owning a gun or not, the current system likely wouldn't have caught it.
According to MSNBC:
Most states have privacy laws barring such information from being shared with law enforcement...[Just 21] states provide NICS at least some names of people with serious mental illness, a disqualifier for gun purchases under federal law since 1968.
The NICS Improvement Act of 2005 would have required more record-keeping, and even the NRA supported it despite its proposal by an anti-gunner:
It sat around for a year and never passed. Maybe the 2007 version will have more luck.
By Robert VerBruggen
UPDATE: On Face the Nation, Sarah Brady stated that Virginia is one of the states that does provide mental health information for background checks. However, the state uses its own guidelines for doing this rather than the federal government's, so this individual was able to "slip through the cracks."
I rarely agree with Brady, but I do support the instant check system, and I think it's important that said system have all the relevant information.
The first assumption proved right, and he even passed a background check. But it turns out that "a temporary detention order was issued resulting in Cho being sent to a mental health facility independent of the university."
The problem here is that the right to medical privacy often prevents important mental health information from getting into the federal government's instant background check system.
According to Firearms Law Center:
Although persons who have been adjudicated as mental defectives or committed to mental institutions are prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms, the current status of the FBI databases makes it difficult to prevent such a person from obtaining firearms if the person undergoes only an FBI background check...[A] great deal of information...is not reported to the FBI, and that agency does not currently have access to state mental health records.
I'm not sure if a "temporary detention order" counts as "committed," which the ATF defines as "a formal commitment" by a "lawful authority." It does not include someone in an institution "voluntarily" or for "observation."
At any rate, whether the guy's commitment barred him from owning a gun or not, the current system likely wouldn't have caught it.
According to MSNBC:
Most states have privacy laws barring such information from being shared with law enforcement...[Just 21] states provide NICS at least some names of people with serious mental illness, a disqualifier for gun purchases under federal law since 1968.
The NICS Improvement Act of 2005 would have required more record-keeping, and even the NRA supported it despite its proposal by an anti-gunner:
The NRA agrees that NICS records are inadequate -- and it notes that inaccurate or incomplete records can delay firearm purchases and result in "wrongful denials" of law-abiding gun-buyers.
It sat around for a year and never passed. Maybe the 2007 version will have more luck.
By Robert VerBruggen
UPDATE: On Face the Nation, Sarah Brady stated that Virginia is one of the states that does provide mental health information for background checks. However, the state uses its own guidelines for doing this rather than the federal government's, so this individual was able to "slip through the cracks."
I rarely agree with Brady, but I do support the instant check system, and I think it's important that said system have all the relevant information.
| 43 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Mindy White
That is a fingerprint-based search. However, you can obtain an instant on-line background search for almost anyone in the USA.
Comment by Jack Barwick