Okla. law bars records release for gun buy checks

[Billybob]

"There is a point where states will be asked to transmit additional information identifying individuals, (but) Oklahoma is one of many states currently prohibited by law from providing this information,"

http://www.wdbo.com/ap/ap/social-issues/okla-law-bars-records-release-for-gun-buy-checks/nQ8gt/

 

[Glocktogo]

One of the issues seems to be what exactly constitutes a mental health record which would qualify for a denial. There have been documented instances where MH records were released that didn't meet the criteria, yet were included in the database anyway.

Since a NICS denial for cause is the denial of a right described in the BoR, it should require a court record that the subject was adjudicated mentally incompetent to be included. That would automatically preclude using a MH record alone as the basis for denial.

 

[Billybob]

I think that due to so many shooters being under "voluntary treatment" that the Judicial adjudication will be changed and call for the opening of further records to prevent failures to "self report" and denial of anyone
under mental health care so as to close the "mental health loophole".
Consider public sentiment when the question asked is; "should people with "mental issues" or those on psychotropic
drugs have firearms"?


[Answers to a question about other mental health issues, such as suicide attempts, are self-reported and not run against any database.

A person who answers positively to that question, or who admits to having sought treatment for a mental illness in the preceding three years, must submit a supplemental OSBI Mental Health Certification Form.

With his signature, a physician must indicate the applicant is no longer diagnosed with or disabled by a mental illness and has not undergone treatment or taken medication for any mental illness for three years, or has been stabilized on medication for 10 years or more.]

http://newsok.com/how-to-obtain-a-p...-publicly-in-oklahoma/article/3700202/?page=2

 

[Glocktogo]

I think that due to so many shooters being under "voluntary treatment" that the Judicial adjudication will be changed and call for the opening of further records to prevent failures to "self report" and denial of anyone
under mental health care so as to close the "mental health loophole".
Consider public sentiment when the question asked is; "should people with "mental issues" or those on psychotropic
drugs have firearms"?


[Answers to a question about other mental health issues, such as suicide attempts, are self-reported and not run against any database.

A person who answers positively to that question, or who admits to having sought treatment for a mental illness in the preceding three years, must submit a supplemental OSBI Mental Health Certification Form.

With his signature, a physician must indicate the applicant is no longer diagnosed with or disabled by a mental illness and has not undergone treatment or taken medication for any mental illness for three years, or has been stabilized on medication for 10 years or more.]

http://newsok.com/how-to-obtain-a-p...-publicly-in-oklahoma/article/3700202/?page=2

Which means two things. First, it would retroactively eliminate the 2nd Amendment rights of U.S. citizens in good standing with the law, retroactively. Just like that POS Frank Lautenberg's amendment did. Second, it will have a complete chilling effect on those who truly need mental health treatment, but are in no way a threat to society. Every day, millions of gun owners receiving treatment for mental health issues don't harm someone with a firearm. Yet we're going to strip them of their rights because of a very few high profile nutbags? I'll come right out and say it. Doing this would result in more loss of life than doing absolutely nothing. So many gun owners will refuse to seek treatment, we'll have far more incidents of sudden violence and suicide than the statistical anomaly that is the active shooter.

Sadly, I believe you're correct. We'll say "damn the torpedoes" and plunge headlong into a foolish effort to "save" everyone from themselves. When it's all said and done, we'll not be able to tell how many active shooters we've prevented nor how many collateral deaths we've caused. All we'll really know for sure is the politicians and press will be patting themselves on the back for doing such a great job.

 

[Billybob]

Which means two things. First, it would retroactively eliminate the 2nd Amendment rights of U.S. citizens in good standing with the law, retroactively. Just like that POS Frank Lautenberg's amendment did. Second, it will have a complete chilling effect on those who truly need mental health treatment, but are in no way a threat to society. Every day, millions of gun owners receiving treatment for mental health issues don't harm someone with a firearm. Yet we're going to strip them of their rights because of a very few high profile nutbags? I'll come right out and say it. Doing this would result in more loss of life than doing absolutely nothing. So many gun owners will refuse to seek treatment, we'll have far more incidents of sudden violence and suicide than the statistical anomaly that is the active shooter.

Sadly, I believe you're correct. We'll say "damn the torpedoes" and plunge headlong into a foolish effort to "save" everyone from themselves. When it's all said and done, we'll not be able to tell how many active shooters we've prevented nor how many collateral deaths we've caused. All we'll really know for sure is the politicians and press will be patting themselves on the back for doing such a great job.

I agree. But like you mentioned look at the Lautenberg amendment and the emotional psudo-logic that drove it,(don't want wife beaters having guns). I just see it being somewhat the same, weather you say "domestic violence" or "mental issues" there's already a certain amount of stigma attached which tends to cut down the dialog, questions, and facts.
I just see it being an easy target given the recent events.