Any thoughts?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

I was rereading the "Fatal Gaps" report from the MAIG folks and I inferred that some states, which seem to seriously under report mental health issues to the FBI data base, may be failing to make those reports due to privacy issues.

The database used in the NICS currently includes information as to why a purchaser may be declined permission to buy a firearm and enough identifying info to accurately distinguish one 'John Smith' from all the others.

Would it be a problem to set up an FBI managed database for NICS purposes which contains only the identifying info for prohibited buyers and a pointers to whatever state agency has made that determination? This way the nature of the issue remains private but the prohibited person's record does make it to the database.

[safeinOhio]

1. It's pretty simple

if you think you may be prohibited from buying a firearm and don't want anyone to know why, don't try to buy one.

[blueridge3210]

2. That's not the question.

The question is how to get people who have been adjudicated mentally unfit to purchase a firearm into the NICS database without violating their privacy rights under HIPPA. Cho at VA Tech is an example of someone who should have been prohibited but was not entered into the database for some reason.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

5. I was trying to think of a solution for the "Cho" problem...

...which blueridge mentioned; getting all the folks who ought to be in the database actually into the database.
See the "Fatal Gaps" report: http://3gbwir1ummda16xrhf4do9d21bsx.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Fatal-Gaps-Report.pdf

See pages 12 and 13.

[Electric Monk]

8. So, you're in favor of background checks, but only for the mentally unstable?

[blueridge3210]

9. How did you derive that from the previous post?

Seriously, how did you derive "add those adjudicated mentally unfit to the existing database" into only conduct background checks on the mentally unstable? The issue is how to expand the existing database of those barred from possessing firearms due to criminal conviction to include those adjudicated, by due process of law, to be mentally unfit while abiding by federal HIPPA requirements.

[Electric Monk]

15. So you're saying it's not about guns, it's only a mental health issue?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

19. You are the one IMPLYING that this is about...

...only about mental health.

I was highlighting what I consider a valid issue for some states brought to light in the MAIG report.
Don't you like the MAIG report? Do you not agree with it?

[blueridge3210]

20. Clearly you are being deliberately obtuse or just dishonest.

Three times it has been explained that the issue is how to add those who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent to the ALREADY EXISTING DATABASE OF THOSE PERSONS NOT PERMITTED TO OWN FIREARMS DUE TO CRIMINAL HISTORY. The issue is that Federal HIPPA requirements restrict those persons who are allowed access to mental health and medical records. No one has said it is only about restricting firearms possession from those who are mentally ill. If you have actually read the posts in this thread, there is no way you can honestly come to that conclusion. Therefore, you are either being deliberately obtuse or just dishonest. This is what I have come to regard as "business as usual" for the pro-control side.

[blueridge3210]

26. Hmm. Still no response.

It appears denial is not just a river in Egypt.

[blueridge3210]

27. Still no response.

Must suck when one gets caught making a blatantly dishonest statement like that.

[Electric Monk]

28. How can it be a "blatantly dishonest statement" when it was a question and a 'toon? nt

[blueridge3210]

29. Because three separate times in the thread it was clearly explained

that the proposal was how to add those adjudicated as mentally unfit to the existing database of those prohibited from owning firearms due to their criminal history. Yet you and "Safe in Ohio" continued to imply that the sole interest was in prohibiting those that were mentally ill from possessing firearms. Hence, blatantly dishonest, regardless of whether it was phrased as a question or statement; the 'toon simply reinforced the dishonest nature of the post. Must really suck to be unable to make a point without trying, poorly, to misrepresent what someone else is saying.

[NYC_SKP]

30. Don't waste your time. Logical Fallacies R US is a waste of your time.

There are a couple of members who practice the art of subject-changing and goalpost shifting to great effect (to them).

It's not worth the effort except for the entertainment.

It's the only way they can get the feeling that they're winning an argument (even though they're losing it).

Of course mental health is an issue, one of many. Most people agree regardless of which side they're on.

Only a few don't have the capacity to see this.

[Electric Monk]

36. Oh, now I understand why you're so upset. You missed that the guy on the left is wearing an NRA

belt buckle, and the guy on the right is being wryly sarcastic. I forgive you.

[blueridge3210]

37. No, I'm not upset.

I'm just aware that some people, being unable to make a coherent, rational argument, must reduce themselves to creating falsehoods and misrepresenting what others say when attempting to discuss an issue. What a sad, dark place in which you must live.

[Electric Monk]

38. Are you trying to say that's not an NRA talking point?

Why the NRA keeps talking about mental illness, rather than guns


The NRA wants an ‘active’ mental illness database.
In his Friday morning news conference, National Rifle Association chief executive Wayne LaPierre floated the idea of a national registry of the mentally ill as one way to stem gun violence.



Meet The Press Interview Exposes Hole In NRA's Mental Health Plan
A major flaw in the National Rifle Association's proposal to respond to the Newtown massacre with an increased focus on mental health but no new legislation on guns was exposed during NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre's interview on NBC's Meet the Press.

During that interview, LaPierre said that a major flaw in the background check system is that states have failed to input mental health records, allowing people who have mental health issues that would prohibit them from buying a firearm to nonetheless pass a background check. But moments later, he expressed opposition to extending the background check system to all gun sales, maintaining a loophole that would allow the mentally ill to continue to obtain firearms.

[blueridge3210]

39. Please define what an "NRA Talking Point" is.

Other than an idea you cannot refute and must designate as a "talking point" in order to save face. As has been noted previously, the subject of the thread was how to add those adjudicated as mentally unfit to the existing database of those disqualified due to criminal history. The thread made no mention of universal background checks; it was solely about modifying the NICS database. For some reason you felt it necessary to attempt to derail the thread by implying that the intent was to only screen for mental illness. When the error was pointed out you ignored it and kept on. You appear to be intentionally obtuse or fundamentally dishonest about the subject of the thread.

[Electric Monk]

40. Things NRA spokespeople have said. Quite simple, really. See my links, above. nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

41. The following persons are prohibited by law from receiving firearms:

...many convicted criminals, fugitives, unlawful users and/or addicts of any controlled substance, persons adjudicated as mental defective or involuntarily committed or incompetent to handle own affairs, found not guilty by reason of insanity or found incompetent to stand trial, illegal aliens, persons dishonorably discharged from the United States Armed Forces, persons who have renounced their United States citizenship, subjects of a protective order, convicted domestic abusers and persons under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.

MAIG released a report (Fatal Gaps) highlighting the issue that several states appear to be under reporting or not reporting mental adjudications to the federal database. I was suggesting a means by which to improve reporting. It seems incomprehensible why these tangential issues are being brought up.

I mention in post #10 that I'm fine with UBCs. I prefer that all background checks be made by law enforcement. I work in certain areas where the most critical requirements are not only verified as proven but verified with independence (meaning that persons without a financial stake in the activity perform the verification.)

Many states have strict laws about confidentiality and it may be easier and faster to modify the nature of the report to database than to change the laws in individual states to allow better reporting.

I'm inferring that you don't like my suggestion. Do you have any ideas?

[blueridge3210]

42. He doesn't need ideas. He has 'toons!!!!! (nt)

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

10. FFLs now run background checks on folks they sell to

I was addressing the issue of some states under reporting to the FBI folks that ought to be in that database.
I'm actually in favor of UBCs which would be more effective if states were able to identify a prohibited buyer without compromising privacy.

[blueridge3210]

23. Well, are you being deliberately obtuse, or just dishonest?

[blueridge3210]

25. Hmm. Still no comment. (nt)

[Starboard Tack]

31. I was thinking...

What if there were a test for those who were just having a really bad day. You know, depending on how your day was going, your gun would only be able to fire so many rounds.

[blueridge3210]

32. I was thinking

That it would be nice if those on the pro-control side could try to make a point without misrepresenting/misstating what others have to say.

[Starboard Tack]

33. Are you addressing that to me for some particular reason?

Because I don't have a side in this, besides common sense and I try my best not to misstate or misrepresent what others have to say.
I'm not a proponent of banning or controlling and I'm not a supporter of stupidity.
I don't care if you get to keep all your guns or if you get to lose them. I do care about the senseless loss of life caused by gun users and the peddling of fear by both sides, but mainly by the NRA and gun industry, which is only interested in profiting from it. People who deal in arms purely for profit are among the worst scum on the planet. If the firearms industry made a good faith effort to produce effective, yet less lethal weapons for both personal protection and home defense, then I might give them some credence. But they don't, and neither do those gun owners who love to have weapons that are more lethal, more destructive more deadly, because they don't give a fuck about anyone but themselves. The majority of gun owners are not like that, but they will eventually pay the price for the behavior of the yahoos.
If you want your 100 round clips, go for it, but don't come crying when the pendulum goes swinging the other way, which it will do eventually. It always does.

[blueridge3210]

34. You replied to EM's post #8

Which falsely implied that firearm owner are only interested in screening for mental health in lieu of criminal history. The initial thread was how to expand the NICS database to include those adjudicated mentally incompetent. Both EM and "Safe In Ohio" intentionally misconstrued the position to only screening for mental illness. Hence my reply that it would be nice if people would avoid misstating the position of another.

[Starboard Tack]

35. I see. You responded to my humorous aside.

An interesting idea nevertheless, though a bit of a challenge.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. Include an audit system to insure people are not arbitrarily permitted or denied a purchase

when indicators suggest the opposite would be more appropriate. If you went in to make a purchase and were denied how would you appeal the listing, i.e. as with people erroneously entered onto the TSA's "no-fly" list?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

11. The system clearly needs periodic audits

I would hope that's happening today but who knows.

[Eleanors38]

4. Any FFLs, former FFLs, or someone-in-the-know out there?

What actually comes up on the screen for an "approved" buyer? Un-approved buyer? Any specifics, or just a 'yea' or 'nay?' Can the FFL open up more of the buyer's records?

What shows on the screen?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

12. Even if supposedly private data...

...isn't passed on to FFLs, in states releasing that data to another state or a federal agency may be a privacy issue.

[Eleanors38]

21. That's why I asked about what the FFL actually sees.

If the FFL sees and says only "not approved," this doesn't reveal anything more. I can't imagine some dealer seeing a complete rap sheet and abstract of a court order, only the two-word consequence.

[Lurks Often]

24. Looks like NICS only gives 3 answers: Approved, Deny, Delayed

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/fact-sheet

I am fairly certain NICS is exempt from any HIPAA or other privacy laws

[NYC_SKP]

6. I think this is the kind of conversation that more of us should be having.

I think that security of information is, indeed, one of the barriers to establishing and implementing smart gun ownership screening methods.

What a shame that when you posted this in the other group it was met with such an "unwelcoming" series of replies.

[sarisataka]

7. If only the conversation could happen

It seems that there shouldn't be any barrier to include non-specific disqualification information in NCIS.

Ironically it seems some of the biggest gaps are from states with high Brady ratings. They have state level duplication of background checks so are not sharing data at the federal level.


As an aside, I think an activist group eould want to run with an idea like this. It is easier to improve a working system than create something new; not that anything new is being proposed.
Instead an unprecedented flurry of thread bumping happened, burying the proposal

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

16. Some states participate as full POC for NICS

The FFL contacts the state which checks state and federal databases.
If the database contains only prohibited names with no data on why, there should be no privacy issues. Appeals can be made to the recording agency to correct any inaccuracies.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

13. How far can I trust my government?

Much of the news is saying not very far.

[sarisataka]

14. I wonder if it would be possible

To simply give a numbered rejection, not directly related to the reason for denial.

Instead of reason 33= felony assault, it would be TN08439. Even NCIS would not know the actual reason but the buyer could contact the Tennessee Department of Justice [for example] and they could look up ID 08439 which would have the information to ID the person and reason(s) they are disqualified.

Of course access to the state records would be strictly limited and monitored

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

17. That's what I was thinking...

...exactly.

[Eleanors38]

22. Yep, along those lines. nt