Summary: Seriously mentally ill people should not have access to guns.
References:
State and Federal law prohibit sale of guns to
anyone ever:
USSC SUPPORTS:
1. Prohibiting purchase or possession of guns
by anyone ever:
Adjudicated mentally incompetent
Adjudicated mentally defective
Involuntarily committed to a mental institution after court due process
safeguards.
2. Strict enforcement of existing federal and
state laws which prohibit these categories of people from having
guns.
3. Access by Utah authorities to listings of
people adjudicated as mentally incompetent, mentally defective, or involuntarily
committed to a mental institution after due process safeguards, both within
the state of Utah and all other jurisdictions.
4. Clarification in the law as to the effect
of a plea or finding of guilty but insane and/or not guilty by reason of
insanity. These should result in automatic processing for adjudication
as mentally incompetent or mentally defective, or involuntary commitment
to a mental institution.
USSC OPPOSES:
1. Restrictions on guns for persons based on less
than adjudication or involuntary commitment. Only those levels of
action ensure full due process prior to imposing a lifetime ban on a constitutionally
protected right. Any lesser level opens the door to potential abuse.
If a person is considered to pose a serious threat then they should be
processed for adjudication or involuntary commitment.
2. Unlimited state access to mental health
treatment records (as opposed to listings of those adjudicated or involuntarily
committed).
USSC Takes no position regarding:
1. Mental health treatment
2. Mental health diagnoses
3. Forced medication of the mentally ill
4. Process or standards for adjudication or commitment
5. State mental health programs and funding
6. “Mental health courts”
Discussion:
Mental health diagnosis and treatment is
very unreliable in predicting, preventing or curing violent behavior.
“Mentally ill” is a term covering everything
from someone suffering mild depression after the death of a family member,
divorce, or career changes, to persons with chronic incurable violent anti-social
behavior..
Some would term any interest or behavior
different from their own as an indication of mental illness. Is a
person mentally ill if they dress strangely? If they are interested in
something like cars, golf, renaissance music, beekeeping, organic gardening,
books on science, oriental religions, or gun collecting?
The possibility of claiming mental illness based on frivolous or biased
grounds has serious potential for abuse.
Studies have shown that the “mentally ill”
commit acts of violence at about the same rate as those not categorized
as “mentally ill.” Therefore the higher standards of formal adjudication
or involuntary commitment are necessary safeguards against abuse.
Advocates for the mentally ill have made
privacy of mental health records a high priority. We believe
that treatment records should remain protected. We believe that adjudication
or involuntary commitment listings should be available to allow enforcement
of existing laws and identify persons prohibited from firearms purchase
or possession.
In many cases (including the Triad Center
and LDS Church Family History Center incidents) mentally ill people have
engaged in violent acts. Their PRIOR violent acts were sufficient
for prosecution as felonies, which would have permanently barred them from
gun ownership. However, the criminal justice system did not expend
the effort to prosecute at the felony level. The mental health system
did not bother to process them for adjudication or involuntary commitment.
In addition to holding people responsible
for violent criminal acts, we need to hold those in the criminal justice
and mental health systems accountable for their failure to fully utilize
the remedies already available to protect society.
Utah Shooting sports Council Position Paper 99-1
approved December 20, 1999