Loophole in firearm background checks

[franci1911]

There is a loophole in firearm background checks that prevents on a national level to connect to mental health records. This they say may have prevented the Virginia Tech Massacre. Three states have closed the loophole to allow court records of dangerous people to be viewed.

Question:

Do you think that this would prevent Tragedies like Virginia Tech Massacre from happening?

Would it reduce the likelyhood of this from happening?

Or would there be no changes at all?

I know something needs to be done and changes in the law need to be made. However, I also belief that there will be little effect in crime statistics. If someone wants to get a weapon in this case a firearm, bad enough, the legal means to the end will have little effect. They'll find a firearm somewhere!

What are your thoughts on this?

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/08-31-2007/0004655038&EDATE=

[lhommedieu]

I know something needs to be done and changes in the law need to be made. However, I also belief that there will be little effect in crime statistics. If someone wants to get a weapon in this case a firearm, bad enough, the legal means to the end will have little effect. They'll find a firearm somewhere!

What are your thoughts on this?

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/08-31-2007/0004655038&EDATE=

I'm not a big fan of the Brady Campaign's take on gun control, but Paul Hemke's ("Strenthening Brady Background Checks") touches upon some important issues that 2nd Amendment advocates ought to consider.

I'd be curious to learn what the "loophole" was and how it was closed.

For some more background to the article mentioned above:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/13/virginia.tech/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/13/virginia.tech/index.html)

http://news.aol.com/elections-blog/2007/04/20/mental-health-background-check-in-the-works/ (http://news.aol.com/elections-blog/2007/04/20/mental-health-background-check-in-the-works/)

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/04/nra_and_congres.html (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/04/nra_and_congres.html)

My understanding of the issue is that state and local law enforcement agencies generally receive inadequate funding to keep the 'National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) up to date with information on, to use the FBI's language, "mental defectives."' I believe that this was the case in Virginia just prior to the shootings at Virginia Tech. And, if I'm not mistaken, two other factors played into the hands of the shooter: (1) because he was ordered by a judge to receive counselling, but not ordered to be placed involuntarily in a mental health institution as an in-patient, Cho Seung Hui simply slipped off the radar (had he been incarcerated in a mental health facility the chances are much greater that he would have appeared on the NICS); (2) Compounding the issue was probably the inability (due to privacy issue constraints) of university officials to voice their concerns about Mr Cho past the level of local law enforcement - and the fact that Mr. Cho simply lied on his application about his current mental health status.

Now, if the "loophole" mentioned above addresses these issues then yes, I think it might have make a difference in this specific instance. One can imagine a scenario whereby Mr. Cho was denied a gun permit on the basis of a NICS "red flag," which triggered an inquiry by local law enforcement leading to an arrest on the basis of his lying on the form, etc.

Might have made a difference - not would have...

Best,

Steve Lamade

[franci1911]

l'm not a big fan of the Brady Campaign's take on gun control, but Paul Hemke's ("Strenthening Brady Background Checks") touches upon some important issues that 2nd Amendment advocates ought to consider.

I'd be curious to learn what the "loophole" was and how it was closed.

For some more background to the article mentioned above:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/13/virginia.tech/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/13/virginia.tech/index.html)

http://news.aol.com/elections-blog/2007/04/20/mental-health-background-check-in-the-works/ (http://news.aol.com/elections-blog/2007/04/20/mental-health-background-check-in-the-works/)

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/04/nra_and_congres.html (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/04/nra_and_congres.html)

My understanding of the issue is that state and local law enforcement agencies generally receive inadequate funding to keep the 'National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) up to date with information on, to use the FBI's language, "mental defectives."' I believe that this was the case in Virginia just prior to the shootings at Virginia Tech. And, if I'm not mistaken, two other factors played into the hands of the shooter: (1) because he was ordered by a judge to receive counselling, but not ordered to be placed involuntarily in a mental health institution as an in-patient, Cho Seung Hui simply slipped off the radar (had he been incarcerated in a mental health facility the chances are much greater that he would have appeared on the NICS); (2) Compounding the issue was probably the inability (due to privacy issue constraints) of university officials to voice their concerns about Mr Cho past the level of local law enforcement - and the fact that Mr. Cho simply lied on his application about his current mental health status.

Now, if the "loophole" mentioned above addresses these issues then yes, I think it might have make a difference in this specific instance. One can imagine a scenario whereby Mr. Cho was denied a gun permit on the basis of a NICS "red flag," which triggered an inquiry by local law enforcement leading to an arrest on the basis of his lying on the form, etc.

Might have made a difference - not would have...

Best,

Steve Lamade

Steve, great points here! I can't agree with you more about the Brady Campaign! As I understand it each state has their own criteria in determining the mental stability (defectiveness) of an individual and at what level of determination is it reportable to where it would be viewable in the case here of Gun Registration.

an excerpt taken from:

http://media.mgnetwork.com/imd/VTShooting/article69.htm


Gov. Timothy M. Kaine said yesterday that Cho "lied on the federal form" where a firearms purchaser is asked whether he has been judged mentally defective. But because his mental assessment did not meet reporting requirements of Virginia law, there was no way to catch Cho's false statement in law-enforcement data banks.
The computerized data banks contain mental-health data, but only that provided by state sources.
A remedy could involve requiring clerk's offices across Virginia to report any judicial finding of mental illness. But that move raises questions about the constitutionality of curtailing civil liberties in voluntary commitment proceedings.
Nor is it clear in Virginia law what a mentally ill person's status would be relative to a gun purchase after a period of treatment or confinement ends.