Institutionalization Records

I was watching one of the news programs last night, and they were mentioning that Senator Schumer (not a friend of gun owners) and the NRA have made common cause on a bill to deal with the loophole that allowed Cho Seung-Hui to pass the national firearms background check. I guess this is progress; instead of focusing on the gun (trying to ban semiautos, or high capacity magazines), they are focusing on the person holding the gun.

The reporter reading the story sounded a little incredulous that the NRA would support such a change, but really, this is not a surprise. The NRA's opposition to various background checks has never been with the concept, but with the implementation details. A background check was not a big problem for the NRA when the Brady Bill passed; it was the waiting period.

From a constitutional standpoint, a background check that excludes felons, the mentally ill, minors, former U.S. citizens, and illegal aliens are all perfectly acceptable, based on the type of restrictions that were common and considered acceptable when the Second Amendment was ratified.

We can argue about particular categories: should all felons be excluded, or only violent felons? What constitues "mentally ill"? Does it include a person who was depressed and sought outpatient psychiatric treatment? I would say that's absurd. But I think most people would agree that someone who has been hospitalized against his or her will because a court concluded that they were a threat to themselves or others is probably a valid basis for a firearms disability--at least for a few years. If someone doesn't end up hospitalized again after some period of time (five years seems like an adequate interval), there's a pretty good chance that this was a passing problem.

I see from an article in today's Idaho Statesman (which I can't find on their website, but is substantially the same as this one) that Idaho is one of 28 states that do not share mental illness commitment information with the FBI for the national background check. The article explains that in some states, there are state privacy laws that prohibit it; in others, there are technical problems that make it impossible. (The state itself doesn't have the information.)

I can understand why Idaho might not have put sharing this information at the top of their priority list--but it isn't like Idaho doesn't keep the information or use it internally. For example, Idaho Code 18-3302 already provides that you may not obtain a concealed carry permit if:

(f) Is currently suffering or has been adjudicated as follows, based on substantial evidence:
(i) Lacking mental capacity as defined in section 18-210, Idaho Code; or
(ii) Mentally ill as defined in section 66-317, Idaho Code; or
(iii) Gravely disabled as defined in section 66-317, Idaho Code; or
(iv) An incapacitated person as defined in section 15-5-101(a), Idaho Code

I am a little surprised that we don't share at least this information with the FBI for the national background check. I can't imagine that cost is an issue; we already have the data somewhere to run the background check for a carry permit, and in a state of 1.5 million people, I can't imagine that more than about 1500 people a year get dropped into one of these categories.