{"id":34,"date":"2007-04-20T13:33:44","date_gmt":"2007-04-20T13:33:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.sentrylink.com\/blog\/2007\/04\/20\/mental-health-and-its-use-in-gun-background-checks\/"},"modified":"2021-06-29T12:40:46","modified_gmt":"2021-06-29T16:40:46","slug":"mental-health-and-its-use-in-gun-background-checks","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.sentrylink.com\/blog\/2007\/04\/20\/mental-health-and-its-use-in-gun-background-checks\/","title":{"rendered":"Mental health and its use in gun background checks"},"content":{"rendered":"

The shootings at Virginia Tech<\/a> by Cho Seung Hui have predictably started another debate on gun control. But the Washington Post<\/a> revealed a new twist. Apparently, existing systems should have been sufficient to prevent Cho from obtaining a gun<\/a> — if the relevant records had been kept up to date. It seems that since 1968 anyone considered mentally ill by the legal system is not permitted to purchase firearms. And Cho was ordered to receive counseling in 2005. However, in a breakdown all too familiar in the public record system, the court order was never reported to the federal authorities. When Cho requested two handguns, his background check came back clean, and his purchase went through.<\/p>\n

There are many depressing aspects to this case, but the worst may be that there seem to have been so many opportunities to prevent this tragedy. Cho was known in the university as being disturbed<\/a>, and received some intervention. And Congress, apparently, has been aware of the defects in the federal background check database for some time. Congress has twice attempted to pass laws to address the issue:<\/p>\n

Under the bill, states would be given money to help them supply the federal government with information on mental-illness adjudications and other run-ins with the law that are supposed to disqualify individuals from firearms purchases. For the first time, states would face penalties for not keeping the National Instant Criminal Background Check System current.<\/p>\n

The legislation, drafted several years ago by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), has twice passed the House, only to die in the Senate. But Cho Seung Hui’s rampage Monday has given it new life.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Democrats are now trying to get an active endorsement of the bill from the National Rifle Association<\/a>, as opposed to their previous neutral stance. One hopes that the bill has a better chance of success now. There are privacy issues associated with mental records, but enforcement of existing laws is a different matter. At a minimum, it is likely that local Virginia officials will be under pressure to keep their records more up to date.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The shootings at Virginia Tech by Cho Seung Hui have predictably started another debate on gun control. But the Washington Post revealed a new twist. Apparently, existing systems should have been sufficient to prevent Cho from obtaining a gun — if the relevant records had been kept up to date. It seems that since 1968 anyone considered mentally ill by the legal system is not permitted to purchase firearms. And Cho was ordered to receive counseling in 2005. However, in a breakdown all too familiar in the public record system, the court order was never reported to the federal authorities. When Cho requested two handguns, his background check came back clean, and his purchase went through. There are many depressing aspects to this case, but the worst may be that there seem to have been so many opportunities to prevent this tragedy. Cho was known in the university as being disturbed, and received some intervention. And Congress, apparently, has been aware of the defects in the federal background check database for some time. Congress has twice attempted to pass laws to address the issue: Under the bill, states would be given money to help them supply the federal government with […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[4,9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-34","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-criminal-checks","category-law-enforcement"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sentrylink.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sentrylink.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sentrylink.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sentrylink.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sentrylink.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=34"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.sentrylink.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":310,"href":"https:\/\/www.sentrylink.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34\/revisions\/310"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sentrylink.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=34"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sentrylink.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=34"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sentrylink.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=34"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}