TexasCHLforum.com

I saw Lott's post earlier, and read the text of HR 327, and frankly I didn't see much direct connection. The bill is only one page long. Sen Coburn had heartburn with it because at one point it apparently had a provision dealing with something gun- or NICS- related, but I could not find out exactly what, or what the outcome was. When I started looking into NICS is when I saw the NICS improvement act and the Clinton history, which seems much more relevent.

seamusTX wrote: ...There are supposed to be firewalls to prevent this sort of thing. Medical diagnosis and treatment per se are supposed to be confidential. Either revealing the information or digging it out without proper authority is a serious offense...

- Jim

Given Mr. Holder's performance so far, especially in the voting rights area, I think his respect for the law is minimal, but anyway..

I went digging a little bit more. You may recall the NICS Improvement Act in 2007. Ted Kennedy, VPC, Coalition to Prevent Handgun Ownership, etc were against it, tried to delay it and get gun unfriendly amendments in it, etc. NRA supported it. It passed. It was in part, if not in whole, a response to the Clinton administration's passing some 90,000 military medical records to the DOJ for the purpose of putting those records into NICS. A number of military and vets were then flagged in NICS as unable to possess a gun due to mental reasons, and I guess there was no process for undoing that, even if in error.

Per NRA-ILA, it had the following in it:

Permanently prohibits the FBI from charging a “user fee” for NICS checks.


Requires all federal agencies that impose mental health adjudications or commitments to provide a process for “relief from disabilities.” (Ted and anti-gun groups especially opposed this).


Prevents reporting of mental adjudications or commitments by federal agencies when those adjudications or commitments have been removed.


Requires removal of expired, incorrect or otherwise irrelevant records. Today, totally innocent people (e.g., individuals with arrest records, who were never convicted of the crime charged) are sometimes subject to delayed or denied firearm purchases because of incomplete records in the system.


Provides a process of error correction if a person is inappropriately committed or declared incompetent by a federal agency. The individual would have an opportunity to correct the error-either through the agency or in court.


Prevents use of federal “adjudications” that consist only of medical diagnoses without findings that the people involved are dangerous or mentally incompetent. This would ensure that purely medical records are never used in NICS. Gun ownership rights would only be lost as a result of a finding that the person is a danger to themselves or others, or lacks the capacity to manage his own affairs.


Improves the accuracy and completeness of NICS by requiring federal agencies and participating states to provide relevant records to the FBI. For instance, it would give states an incentive to report those who were adjudicated by a court to be "mentally defective," a danger to themselves, a danger to others or suicidal.

I am still wondering if this guy actually went through some adjudication board after being on "stipend" or getting a disability rating or whatever and didn't realize it. To my knowledge most review boards are not like in the movies, in a big room with the subject person facing all these people at a table. It would not surprise me if it is just some docs going through medical records and recording their votes/reccomendations. You would think Irelans would get a letter, but did he realize what it meant? Dunno. Wait and see.

seamusTX wrote: ...
It seems to me he could have been declared disabled and qualify for financial assistance without being found incompetent.

There are plenty of people who have emotional problems or brain damage who are not legally incompetent. Findings of legal incompetence are quite rare.

Would there not have to be some kind of hearing before a medical board or judge?

I also don't know why the NRA, SAF, or some other RKBA organization isn't all over this. Granted the story came out last week.

- Jim

I agree with all you say and yes I think there should have been a medical board and a court ...

I am just saying that I wonder if there is something else that has not popped out yet. For a bureaucrat in the VA to be able to make an input into NICS (or wherever), there has to be a mechanism in place for him or her to do that. If so, I would think there would be a lot more of these stories (granted, this may be the first wave of the tsunami).

Right now I think there is equal liklihood that a) there is a malevolent attempt by Holder's Justice Department to brand returning military as nuts and trample on their rights by querying the VA for info on who has been treated (versus who has been "adjudicated); b) a bureaucratic mix-up at either the VA or the NICS office; or c) he was in fact adjudicated and isn't telling us, didn't realize it, or never heard about it.

seamusTX wrote:...
What I find troubling about this is that the change made to NICS disqualification several years ago was supposed to disqualify only people who had been adjudicated mentally incompetent.

- Jim

I have some reservations about this story.

Your statement is correct as far as I know, so something doesn't add up. Either the bureacracy got out of control (quite possible)...or there is an adjudication that we haven't heard about yet.

Now if the story is at all correct (big "if") he apparently convinced the VA to award him a service-connect based on some kind of mental incompetence, so much so that his wife had to handle everything. Did this trigger an adjudication that hasn't come to light yet? Think I will wait for some more details...