Some States Do Not Report Mental Illness To Federal database

[Lucky45]

By Pete Williams
Justice correspondent
NBC News
Updated: 33 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - In Virginia, lawyers for the state say they're reviewing their own laws, checking whether Seung-Hui Cho's history of mental problems should have disqualified him from buying firearms. But the fact that he was able to buy two guns raises new questions about how the background checks work.

Investigators say the dealers who sold Seung Hui Cho his guns followed the law to the letter.

"We did a background check," says John Markell, the firearms dealer who sold Cho one of his guns. "He cleared the state police and the federal computers and was able to take the gun with him."

But gun control advocates say those computer checks should have picked up Cho's history of mental problems and stopped him. Why? Because federal law bans gun sales to anyone found by a court to be a danger to himself or others because of mental illness. And a year and a half ago, after Cho talked about suicide, a Virginia judge declared him a danger to himself as a result of mental illness.

"On the face of that court order, he should have been barred from buying a gun from a licensed dealer," says Dennis Henigan with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

But in Virginia, the state enters people like Cho into the gun check computers only if they've actually been committed for treatment, such as to a hospital, which Cho never was.

Broken mental health system puts us at risk

Virginia's attorney general says the state is now examining its policy. But even with those problems, Virginia's system turns out to be the best in the country — far ahead of any other state in reporting mental health records.

There are 28 other states that fail to report mental illness. In fact, more than half the states don't report any mental health records at all to the federal database that gun dealers use to check a buyer's background. The states are lax about it, because the Supreme Court ruled 10 years ago that reporting that information is voluntary for them. Congress is now considering a bill to give states more money to improve the records — and reduce money from other federal programs if they don't.

"It was an eye-opener, for certainly this office and for myself, on how many states are not putting all of the information into the system," says Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y.

House leaders say they'll take up the bill in a few weeks. And supporters say the NRA will not oppose it.

[Lucky45]

I guess it was ignored in other discussions that the states already have a mental database, now to find out that we have a Federal database for MENTAL ILLNESS.

Now, I wonder what all the dissenters have to say, now that it has been confirmed that we don't have to CREATE a new database because we already had one in place.

Also, if you are a NRA member, i guess you see the NRA don't have a problem with it. Now are you going to cancel? maybe burn your card?
Tell us?

[KBCraig]

Isn't it funny... 15 years ago there was no such thing as a background check or waiting period except in a couple of states. Gun rights activists fought tooth and nail against having either of them implemented, but certain folks worked quietly in the background to give us a permanent NICS system.

These days, most gun rights folks accept and even defend NICS; a handful of activists (like me) seek to eliminate it or at least hold the status quo, but the same folks who created it now want to increase its scope.

Fifteen years ago I didn't need anyone's permission to buy a firearm. Now my "friends" want to force me to have not just my criminal history, but also my medical history checked, just to make sure mine aren't "the wrong hands".



Would someone please grab that other goalpost, and we'll move them back to our end of the field?

Kevin

[Lucky45]

Fifteen years ago I didn't need anyone's permission to buy a firearm. Now my "friends" want to force me to have not just my criminal history, but also my medical history checked, just to make sure mine aren't "the wrong hands".
:Kevin

hey,
my understanding of the whole thing, is that this issue was already before the Supreme Court who said it was voluntary to submit that information to the federal database. So I don't see where the force is, because it has been on the books for all these years.

[Commander]

If there is such a thing as a statewide "mental Database" in Texas, I'd appreciate someone furnishing the following information:
1- What state agency maintains the database?
2- How is the data base accessed? Through TLETS, TCIC or TDEX?
3- Who is authorized to check the database?
4-What specific information is maintained in the database?

[Lucky45]

If there is such a thing as a statewide "mental Database" in Texas, I'd appreciate someone furnishing the following information:
1- What state agency maintains the database?
2- How is the data base accessed? Through TLETS, TCIC or TDEX?
3- Who is authorized to check the database?
4-What specific information is maintained in the database?

I posted that information on Saturday in the discussion. "Mental Illness Database" in the CHL forum

The database in Texas is called WEBCARE.
1. State Health Department. ??? Mental Health Dept.
2. Only medical personal and insurance companies can accessed and retrieve info. Police can enter info into database.
3. Medical personal with authorization can access it. (Any and all licensed in some way or fashion.)
4. Only mental illness that has been diagnosed and treatment plans are enter into the database. People that have been perscribed certain drugs are automatically entered. Consultations with a shrink is not entered and stupid form question are not entered. ONLY DIAGNOSED MENTAL ILLNESS BY A MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL IS ENTERED. cause I know some people will still come on here and make crazy statement. In plain english, if you have ever been to ANY doctor and they told you after an appointment that you have been DIAGNOSED with a mental illness that is written in a medical journal and entered into your medical file Then chances are YOU ARE IN THE TEXAS DATABASE..called WEBCARE.

[Lucky45]

http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/cmbhs/default.shtm

Everyone should check it out. But if you don't want to here are the main points.

Presently, the Department of State Health Services (DSHS) uses multiple information technology systems to provide and manage mental health and substance abuse services for Texans.
For the mental health system, CARE and WebCARE are the current systems that provide clinical management services. CARE’s database stores client registration and demographic data, assessment and diagnostic information from clinical service providers, state hospitals and others.
Gathering and analyzing comprehensive client and service data will help provide a full view of mental health and substance abuse services and present a complete and accurate treatment history for clients. This full picture will require input from multiple entities providing behavioral health services, including substance abuse providers, community MHMR centers, NorthSTAR, state hospitals and other providers. State hospitals are out of scope for the current project. Data integration through an integrated data warehouse or data federation is to be addressed in a future project.
The current project is designed to begin the streamlining process so clinical information is gathered in the most efficient way possible, minimizing entry of data into multiple systems and using industry standard transactions where possible.

[pbandjelly]

Would someone please grab that other goalpost, and we'll move them back to our end of the field?

Kevin

soccer or football?

[Commander]

If there is such a thing as a statewide "mental Database" in Texas, I'd appreciate someone furnishing the following information:
1- What state agency maintains the database?
2- How is the data base accessed? Through TLETS, TCIC or TDEX?
3- Who is authorized to check the database?
4-What specific information is maintained in the database?

I posted that information on Saturday in the discussion. "Mental Illness Database" in the CHL forum

The database in Texas is called WEBCARE.
1. State Health Department. ??? Mental Health Dept.
2. Only medical personal and insurance companies can accessed and retrieve info. Police can enter info into database.
3. Medical personal with authorization can access it. (Any and all licensed in some way or fashion.)
4. Only mental illness that has been diagnosed and treatment plans are enter into the database. People that have been perscribed certain drugs are automatically entered. Consultations with a shrink is not entered and stupid form question are not entered. ONLY DIAGNOSED MENTAL ILLNESS BY A MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL IS ENTERED. cause I know some people will still come on here and make crazy statement. In plain english, if you have ever been to ANY doctor and they told you after an appointment that you have been DIAGNOSED with a mental illness that is written in a medical journal and entered into your medical file Then chances are YOU ARE IN THE TEXAS DATABASE..called WEBCARE.

Thanks....I looked at that thread and missed this post....I think we are arguing the same thing from different viewpoints....my point is that Law enforcement does not have access to this system as it is a Medical system. Background checks for such things as CHLs are done by LE personnel who cannot access this system. So a computer "check" by a LEO doing a background for a CHL application will not inquire into this database. And as I understand the Instant Check system for purchasing a weapon, it also is done through Law Enforcement channels not medical. The question is : Do we want to open our medical records to Law Enforcement?

[Steve #1]

Do we want to open our medical records to Law Enforcement?

I have no problem with one database querying another database for a simple yes or no.

What are the realistic downsides?
1) one more thing that could possibly get screwed up and get you delayed or denied. .... I'll give you that one.

2) People who aren’t mentally stable, and cant legally buy guns, can't walk in to a store and buy guns? ..... I'm fine with that.

3) Law enforcement gets there hands on the information somehow and now there are more black helicopters fallowing you around. ...... see #2
above

[Lucky45]

hey SW,
I think that issue was addressed in orignal post, because the federal law was already in place to access that info, ONLY IF YOU ARE IN THE DATABASE. THe problem was that SUPREME COURT said it was voluntary for some state to submit that info from the STATE LEVEL to the FEDERAL level.

Come to think about it, it kinda makes sense considering the post about non citizens and discussion that I had the other day with TXi about background checks and the ATF.

Federally licensed dealers must comply with the Brady law prior to the transfer of any firearm to a non-licensed individual.
[18 U.S.C. 922(t), 27 CFR 478.102 ]

Part of the Brady Law has the requirement for licensees to initiate background checks of individuals to whom firearms are transferred by contacting the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

NICS is operated by the FBI. Licensees initiate NICS checks through the State point of contact (POC) and not always NICS as some states act as a point of contact. In some States, the POC conducts background checks for all firearms transactions. In other States, licensees must contact the POC for hand-gun transactions and the FBI for long gun transactions. In some POC States, NICS checks for pawn redemptions are handled by the FBI.

So those states that were voluntarily submit to the FEDERAL MENTAL DATABASE, were PROBABLY the states that were ACTING as the POINT OF CONTACT for background checks. Sounds logical....?!?!?

[Charles L. Cotton]

. . . Also, if you are a NRA member, i guess you see the NRA don't have a problem with it. Now are you going to cancel? maybe burn your card?
Tell us?

What is the NRA doing in the process? Is the NRA trying to promote legislation, or is it trying to make sure there are safeguards? Could those safeguards be the prevention of including someone's name unless they were adjudicated as incompetent, as opposed to merely having been prescribed medication or being treated?

No, I'm not cancelling my membership, burning my card, or resigning from the Board of Directors.

Chas.

[Lucky45]

What is the NRA doing in the process? Is the NRA trying to promote legislation, or is it trying to make sure there are safeguards? Could those safeguards be the prevention of including someone's name unless they were adjudicated as incompetent, as opposed to merely having been prescribed medication or being treated?
Chas.

Hey Chas,
isn't that what most of those not opposed to using a mental database in these few discussions have been saying all along? So basically, we are in the same line of reasoning as the NRA,....right???? ONLY THOSE THAT WERE ADJUDICATED AS INCOMPETENT BY A MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL. We were not calling for complete open records.

[pbandjelly]

The question is : Do we want to open our medical records to Law Enforcement?

not without a subpoena.

here's a different perspective. Let's look at things from a clinical standpoint.
Say for instance, you have Pt A come in to your office (you are a Family Practice PCP). Pt A asks for Valium, for his anxiety.
Pt A goes to Dr B, asks for Valium, for his anxiety.
there's a problem.....

Pt A shows up at Hospital C, having never been a patient there before, the admission nurse (Registered Nurse, typically a Bachelor's in Science) enters the Pt's info into computer. Screen pops up, says Pt A has a severe Anxiety problem, which could be related to why Pt A is in a cold sweat, having heart palpitations, chest pain.

as opposed to a Myocardial Infarction (aka heart attack). (yes it's a bit of a stretch, but you get the point)

The admission nurse is only allowed to access the Pt's info while he/she is in the commision of their duties. This means that only while this nurse is tending to this Pt can he/she access that info. same as the Dr's. other modalities can only access this Pt's info if it pertains to their particular job.
HIPAA (Health Information Portability and Accountability Act, thank you Clinton) laws prevent any Joe Schmoe from looking up info on somebody, and there are severe penalties for the person, and for the Hospital, who accesses info they didn't need to be looking at.
this stuff makes my job harder, but it does protect a pt's confidential info.

Honestly, if Patients have a fear of their confidential info getting out, they will be less inclined to go to the Doctor and seek treatment.
I am reluctant to believe that Doctor's (money grubbers), Hospital corporations (money grubbers), AND Pharmaceutical Companies (BIG money grubbers) would allow something to come in and cut into their


wait for it




money.


but that's just my $.02

[Charles L. Cotton]

What is the NRA doing in the process? Is the NRA trying to promote legislation, or is it trying to make sure there are safeguards? Could those safeguards be the prevention of including someone's name unless they were adjudicated as incompetent, as opposed to merely having been prescribed medication or being treated?
Chas.

Hey Chas,
isn't that what most of those not opposed to using a mental database in these few discussions have been saying all along? So basically, we are in the same line of reasoning as the NRA,....right???? ONLY THOSE THAT WERE ADJUDICATED AS INCOMPETENT BY A MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL. We were not calling for complete open records.

First, let me say that I'm not playing coy; I don't know what NRA is doing on this issue. I know we are involved, but neither NRA-ILA nor any department within NRA contacts members of the Board on operational issues. I will be updated as a member of the Legal Affairs Committee and as a Trustee on the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund, but that's not the same as being in on ongoing discussions.

All that said, I am confident NRA will be making sure there are safeguards in place to keep people from being placed on the prohibited list unnecessarily.

In my personal opinion, as opposed to a statement of position as an NRA Board member, I do not support anyone being prohibited from owning a firearm unless they are adjudicated incompetent and institutionalized, or made the subject of a guardianship by a family member, friend, or the state. In my view, merely having a court "find" that a person is a danger to himself and/or others, without doing anything to restrict that person's activities, is too low of a standard upon which to deny a right to own a firearm. It means nothing to me if a judge renders an opinion that someone is a danger to himself, but then lets him walk out of the courtroom to tend to his own affairs. (BTW, only a court can adjudicate a matter, but expert testimony from medical professionals will be required to make that determination.)

I am also very concerned about the power of the courts being abused. For example, there was an elderly lady on TV in Houston several months ago who was arrested for UCW. She lived in a deplorable shack that was the filthiest thing I've seen in years. The charges were dropped because the State of Texas petitioned to have a made a ward of the State, not because she was mentally incompetent, but because some judge decided she was too old to live by herself! And the only evidence mentioned was the filthy house. That's scary folks. (News reports can and often are inaccurate, so I may be wrong as to the lack of evidence.)

Here is another issue. I have been told that once you are on the NICS "prohibited list" for mental health issues, you will not get off. I have not confirmed this, but it came from a very knowledgeable attorney that deals with NICS issues almost on a daily basis. I would also note that, while there is a federal law that provides a procedure for a person who has lost their right to own a firearm to have that right reinstated, Congress passed a bill that prohibited the use of any federal funds for that purpose. So the procedure exists in law, but, as a matter of law, it cannot be used. I don’t want dangerously incompetent people running around shooting innocent people, but I fear this is a very slippery slope on which we are treading.

I deal with psychiatrists in many of my cases and have for decades. Most cases that involve psychiatrists have at least one on each side of the case, each of whom reviews the same medical records and evidence, yet they come to opposite opinions. The jury is then left to guess which one, if either, is correct. The mental health sciences are far too imprecise to use as a basis for denying anyone their Second Amendment right, unless the psychiatrist and the judge will go so far as to institutionalize the person, or appoint a guardian. It would be far too easy for a court to decide "he's too crazy to own a gun, but other than that, he can function independently."

Chas.