06-21-2013, 03:04 AM
Tiki, Six, F.U., sally (and others interested in the details of mental illness/defect in regards to gun purchase qualifications):
Just read this recent report about what "mental defect/illness" used to mean in terms of disqualification from gun purchase, what it currently means, and some of the HIPAA and state challenges regarding NICS database population. I thought it was an interesting read.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43040.pdf
I don't want to see patients' private info revealed unnecessarily; mental health records in NICS should only include those which deem a person dangerous to himself or others. IMO.
That issue is addressed partially in the doc, along with the fact that those who have recovered can get themselves removed from the unqualified gun purchaser list.
As with most any guidelines/protocols, I can envision a lot of loopholes and opportunity for abuse if someone for some unknown reason was so inclined.
But, the report was helpful (to me, anyway) in further understanding some of the challenges related to what I perceive to be the biggest challenge with gun control laws: how to be most effective in keeping guns away from those who present a threat to society, while minimizing restrictions placed upon responsible gun owners in the process. The report doesn't include answers/solutions; more where we are and what's keeping us from where we might need to be.
ETA: Where's the ACLU? Straddling the fence and all over the map in terms of gun control. Don't really blame them in this case; individuals vs. the collective individuals making up society?
Just read this recent report about what "mental defect/illness" used to mean in terms of disqualification from gun purchase, what it currently means, and some of the HIPAA and state challenges regarding NICS database population. I thought it was an interesting read.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43040.pdf
I don't want to see patients' private info revealed unnecessarily; mental health records in NICS should only include those which deem a person dangerous to himself or others. IMO.
That issue is addressed partially in the doc, along with the fact that those who have recovered can get themselves removed from the unqualified gun purchaser list.
As with most any guidelines/protocols, I can envision a lot of loopholes and opportunity for abuse if someone for some unknown reason was so inclined.
But, the report was helpful (to me, anyway) in further understanding some of the challenges related to what I perceive to be the biggest challenge with gun control laws: how to be most effective in keeping guns away from those who present a threat to society, while minimizing restrictions placed upon responsible gun owners in the process. The report doesn't include answers/solutions; more where we are and what's keeping us from where we might need to be.
ETA: Where's the ACLU? Straddling the fence and all over the map in terms of gun control. Don't really blame them in this case; individuals vs. the collective individuals making up society?