Gun Control Measures for the Mentally Ill

Spurred by the April shooting at Virgina Tech, the issue of gun control with regard to people who have a history of mental illness has become the subject of national debate. Many argue, and federal law supports, that people who have been diagnosed with a mental illness should not be allowed to purchase firearms. In particular the predominant belief applies to those who have been deemed a threat to themselves or others. This issue has arisen in response to the massacre at Virginia Tech due to the fact that Seung-Hui Cho, the student who committed the shootings, had been declared mentally ill by a court in 2005. Because of this court decree, Cho should have been blocked from purchasing the guns used in the shooting in compliance with federal law.

According to an article appearing in the New York Times a law which was intended to avert such incidents and should have denied Cho's ability to purchase a gun is already in effect. The federal law referred to by author Michael Luo prohibits the sale of firearms to anyone who has been "adjudicated as a mental defective" and that this includes those judged by a court to be a "danger to himself or others." Luo states that the reason Cho was still able to purchase a gun is that Virginia has a law which is similar to the federal law but applies only to involuntary committals to a mental health institution. For purposes of submitting documentation stating that an individual should be denied the ability to buy guns the federal law has seldom been properly adhered to, with most agencies in Virginia abiding more closely by the state law. Rather than submitting information on all who have been declared a potential threat, the state of Virginia had been reporting only those who had been committed involuntarialy. Cho was ordered to seek outpatient counseling, which did not constitute being involuntarily committed. Because of this difference in language, Cho did not get flagged in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) as should have happened in accordance with the federal law (Luo 1).

The deficiency found here is due largely to confusion regarding the federal law and how it is to be enforced as well as privacy concerns, according to another New York Times article. In the article author Michael Luo states that this is not the first time gun control advocates have sought to strengthen the federal laws concerning the NICS, and it is certainly not the first time murders which should have been hindered by the database have occurred. Virginia is not alone in failing to adhere to the laws concerning the NCIS. Currently only 22 states submit any records of mental illness for inclusion in the database, rendering it nearly useless as a nationwide system. Luo presents estimates that only roughly one tenth of people who should be included on the list actually are (Luo 2).
Some states, such as Montana, even have privacy laws which prevent the required information from being reported to the federal government. These privacy laws are upheld in preference of the federal reporting requirement thanks to a 1997 Supreme Court decision on a lawsuit that had been financed by the NRA. In it the Court ruled that states could not be forced to participate in regulatory programs run by the federal government, such as reporting mental health records to the NICS. With mental health advocates as well as gun control opponents and civil rights supporters opposing the law, it has been impossible for changes to be made which strengthen use of the NICS to the point it was intended (Luo 2).

On June 13, just under two months after the Virginia Tech shooting, the House of Representatives passed a bill authored by longtime gun control advocate Carolyn McCarthy, a Democrat from New York. The bill is aimed at strengthening the usefulness of the NICS in preventing a tragedy such as this from occurring. Despite the fact that no gun control legislation has been passed in Congress since 1996 this bill was approved just two days after being introduced, indicating strong support in the House for increasing restrictions placed on gun ownership. Even the National Rifle Association agrees with this legislation despite being a leading proponent of the right of Americans to bear arms, claiming that this bill is not gun control since it does not seek to prohibit anyone from purchasing guns who isn't already denied the right according to existing laws. If the bill passes in the Senate it will require all states to report mental health records to ensure all individuals flagged in the NICS for mental health reasons as well as facilitate the process. As can be seen by the fact that only 22 states currently contribute such records to the database, it is clear that some reform is necessary in order for it to function as intended. The bill also would provide $375 million per year for three years to help states in implementing the proposed changes as well as create an appeals process which can be used to remove individuals from the list disqualifying them from purchasing a gun if they are judged to have recovered from their mental illness or have been wrongly added to it (Abrams).

A leading opponent to increased restrictions on gun ownership by those classified as mentally ill is Dr. David Shern, president and CEO of Mental Health America (MHA), a group dedicated to promoting the rights of mentally ill individuals and ensuring the mental welfare of all Americans. Shern claims that laws restricting the rights of the mentally ill are inappropriate and will serve to further stigmatize an already discriminated against group. Shern also fears that such legislation may influence some people to avoid seeking the mental help that they need for fear that they will be added to the list prohibiting their ownership of guns as a result of their illness. Shern asserts that the system is full of holes and that improving reporting of mental illness is unlikely to impact the rate of gun crimes, arguing that Cho likely would have been able to obtain a gun even if the laws in place had served their purpose and prevented him from purchasing one through legal avenues. Instead of spending over a billion dollars to patch holes in what he sees as a fundamentally flawed system of background checks he proposes increased funding for mental health services, which currently receive $430 million annually from the federal government (Shern).

Dr. Shern is joined in his opposition to increased legislation limiting the rights of the mentally ill by Dr. Nada Stotland, vice president of the American Psychiatric Association. In an article that appeared in Newsweek Stotland is quoted as saying that the restrictions are "unconscionable" and criticizes the proposed legislation as being too expensive and intrusive (Isikoff). Another group opposed to expanding the existing law is Gun Owners of America, whose president has stated that it "is being done as a denial of a civil liberty" (Luo 2). Opponents to the bill feel that it is an inappropriate knee-jerk reaction to a tragic event and that it won't solve problems while further discriminating against individuals already at a disadvantage.

It has been frequently debated whether having a mental illness increases one's likelihood of committing a crime. Dr. Shern's argument for increased mental health funding in order to reduce the crime rate has little support among the research that exists. Various studies on the issue have reported different results, suggesting that mentally ill individuals account for anywhere between 3% and 15% of all homicides in America. It unclear, however, whether this wide range of estimates can accurately demonstrate that those with mental illnesses commit murder at a disproportionate rate (Treatment Advocacy Center). Another paper reports that mental illness is less tied to an increased crime rate than other factors such as gender or substance abuse, though it does state that mental treatment programs are able to significantly lower the rate of repeat offenses. The report goes on to push for increased funding for such programs and concur with Dr. Shern's fear of worsening problems as a result of the mentally ill being further stigmatized. The concern is that laws such as the one being proposed serve to label the mentally ill as violent and dangerous in the public eye, which in turn may lead to decreased support for mental health programs (Siegfried & Goetinck).

Laws which limits the rights of an individual are nearly always controversial and difficult to justify, especially in instances in which the individuals in question are already marginalized members of society. In this case a law which should have been able to prevent the Virginia Tech shooting is already in existence. As evidenced by the shooting and the fact that fewer than half of the states are currently providing mental health reports in accordance with federal law, it is currently quite easy for individuals who should fail a background check due to mental illness to purchase a gun. The main controversy over this issue is whether improving the system would reduce the amount of gun crimes committed by the mentally ill. It is often easy for criminals to get guns despite being prevented from doing so by the law, so what reason exists to believe that the same would not be true for the mentally ill?

This on its own is bordering on committing a perfectionist fallacy to justify the argument. Flaws in a system and the inability to achieve absolute perfection are not valid reasons to reject an argument. However, when over a billion dollars is at stake, the efficacy of the proposal in comparison to alternatives ought to be considered. It is possible that although Dr. Shern has a clear bias toward funding mental health programs he is correct about how the issue of violence committed by the mentally ill should be addressed. It may be more effective in reducing this crime rate while simultaneously promoting health if the attention were turned to helping people rather than limiting freedoms.

In formulating a policy regarding this issue one will naturally consider whether it is more important for the government to protect individual freedoms or the right of all citizens to a sense of safety. Clearly different people will come to different answers to this question based upon the ideology which they subscribe to. In a democratic state such as ours though, it is likely that all but the most liberal will agree that some degree of government intervention to maintain safety of the public as a whole is justified. Correctly enforcing an existing law is a perfectly reasonable solution to a problem such as this. It does not place any further restrictions on freedoms and is likely to make society safer and reduce the number of guns on the street. While new policies are unnecessary and possibly unconstitutional, proper implementation of existing ones with clear benefit to society should be common sense.

Though the proposal to better implement the current federal law has been met with widespread support, the existing law itself is not free from controversy. Mental health and civil liberties advocates such as Dr. Shern likely would argue that denying the right to buy guns to those with a history of mental illness is discriminatory and unfair. It would seem at first that selective denial of rights such as this may be unconstitutional. However, in our society government tends to take an interventionist role, which we embrace and have come to expect. This can be seen in a wide variety of incarnations from driving restrictions to liquor laws to the welfare system. The citizens of the US have tasked our government with protecting our expanded liberty. In other words, it has been established that our freedoms should not be so far reaching as to infringe on the right to safety and happiness held by others. Someone who has been deemed by a court to be a potential threat to themselves or others should not be granted easy access to weapons which can facilitate their shift from potential threat to murderer.

Bibliography

Abrams, Jim. "House OKs Bill to Strengthen Background Check System for Guns." Fox News 13 June 2007. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,281777,00.html

Isikoff, Michael. "Taking Aim at Mental Health Records." Newsweek 24 Apr. 2007. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18298126/site/newsweek/

Luo, Michael (Luo 1). "Cho's Mental Illness Should Have Blocked Gun Sale." The New York Times 20 Apr. 2007.

Luo, Michael (Luo 2). "Privacy Laws Slow Efforts on Gun-Buyer Data." The New York Times 2 May 2007.

Shern, David. "Gun registry not likely to curb violence." USA Today 18 May 2007. http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/05/gun_registry_no.html

Siegfired, Tom and Sue Goetinck. "Association Between Violence, Mental Illness Disputed." Pendulum Resources. 1996. http://www.pendulum.org/articles/articles_dmn_violence.html

Treatment Advocacy Center. "Briefing Paper." Treatment Advocacy Center. Retrieved 25 June 2007 from http://www.psychlaws.org/BriefingPapers/BP11.htm