NSSF Cheers Increase in Disqualifying Mental Health Records Submitted to NICS Background Check System

gun sales background check 4473 atf

Bistock

The National Shooting Sports Foundation® (NSSF®) today is praising a milestone achievement of a 241 percent increase of state submissions of adjudicated mental health records to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System database since the firearms industry launched the FixNICS® campaign in 2013. Just 1.7 million such records existed in the FBI’s database when NSSF began the campaign in 2013 to fix the background check system. Today, there are more than 5.6 million records.

“This remarkable achievement demonstrates the firearms industry’s commitment to real solutions for safer communities,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President of Government Relations and Public Affairs and General Counsel. “The firearms industry conceived of the point-of-purchase instant background check system that exists today. We have spent years working successfully to fix the system so that it works as intended. We have improved the quality and accuracy of background checks by changing the law in 16 states and at the federal level. It is critical that our background checks are updated, accurate and reliable. Firearms retailers rely upon this system to be accurate to ensure firearms do not fall into the wrong hands. This milestone is what bipartisan common ground looks like. It is a development that we can all agree is good for the safety of our communities.”

A background check is only as good as the records in the database. That is why the firearms industry supports improving the current NICS system by increasing the number of prohibiting records states submit to the FBI databases, helping to prevent illegal transfers of firearms to those who are prohibited from owning firearms under current law. Including these missing records will help ensure more accurate and complete background checks.

State participation in the NICS system is voluntary because the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not allow the federal government to mandate the states to submit records. NSSF worked with 16 states to change laws to increase submissions of disqualifying records. NSSF also worked with U.S. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) on the bipartisan FixNICS legislation that was signed into law by President Trump to require federal agencies to submit all disqualifying records, incentivizes states to improve their overall reporting and directs more federal funding to the accurate reporting of domestic violence records.

Several states still do not fully submit their disqualifying records to help keep firearms from falling into the hands of those prohibited by law from purchasing them. The firearms industry remains committed to real solutions like fixing the broken background check system to make our communities safe.

About NSSF

The National Shooting Sports Foundation is the trade association for the firearms industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of thousands of manufacturers, distributors, firearms retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations and publishers nationwide. For more information, log on to www.nssf.org.

comments

  1. avatar No One Special says:

    This begs the question of how many of the people in these reported records are really a threat to either themselves or others? Does this only include people that have already had due process and have been mentally adjudicated by the court? If not than how many people will possibly be denied their rights without due process just because of a conversation with a health care provider? Clearly this leaves a lot of unanswered questions.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      I think the story said adjudicated.
      So they all had their day in court. Not much else process wise can be done beyond that.

    2. avatar guest says:

      People are constantly saying, “it’s not a gun issue, it’s a mental health issue.”

      This is what that looks like in the real world.

    3. avatar MarkPA says:

      We PotG need to keep two distinct notions clearly separated:
      1) – the legal criteria for designating an individual a “Prohibited Person” for 2A rights; and,
      2) – the mechanism for identifying Prohibited-Persons; NICS and the systems available to police.

      I strongly believe that the Prohibited-Person criteria need to be re-examined and overhauled. As merely one example, why should felons convicted of price-fixing NOT suffer the loss of their 2A rights? Why should this felony be exempt when lots of other non-violent felonies result in a loss of 2A rights? We need to work on the CRITERIA, not the enforcement mechanisms.

      That said, I don’t believe that we do the cause of 2A rights any good by arguing that individuals adjudicated as incompetent ought to keep their gun rights. It is even more ridiculous to argue that it is Constitutional to deprive them of their rights but at the same time DISCOURAGE states from reporting these individuals to the FBI for inclusion in NICS databases.

      There are, doubtlessly, many tragic cases of individuals who have lost their 2A rights as a consequence of conviction or reporting of a mental-health condition. The solution to these cases is to restore funding to the DoJ to process their applications for restoration of rights. Where their arguments for restoration are meritorious they deserve an economical and expeditious hearing; a right which Congress denies them. We should invest our efforts in this direction rather than argue that everyone released from custody ought to automatically enjoy a restoration of rights.

      1. avatar Jim from LI says:

        Generally speaking, most people don’t fear encountering a price fixer on a dark street.

      2. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Out shilling for the King again I see, MarkPA.

        Here’s another goat.

      3. avatar CC says:

        I agree. It seems a number of people here have not read up on this. This is about people adjudicated already and now properly reported to NICS.

  2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    The ACLU will file a lawsuit to stop this in 4,3,2,1.

    1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

      You mean 4, 3, 1 …

      1. avatar jwm says:

        Nicely played.

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Eric in Oregon,

        That there was funnnnyyyyyy!

        You sir win the award for best comment on the Intertubez this week.

    2. avatar Chris Mallory says:

      Big government loving “conservatives” will lick a jackboot to celebrate in 5 4 3 2 1…..

  3. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    The NSSF cheering that the government isn’t fucking off too badly. Kinda sad really.

  4. avatar Dude says:

    I’d like to see some investigative reporting on what exactly disqualified these people. We need to be aware of what the rules are.

    1. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

      Yep, what exactly did these people do? Sell marijuana before it was legal? What about the woman who protected herself with her dad’s shotgun without a valid license? A guy who had a bad lawyer in a bad divorce with an ex who slept with the judges’s brother? (I made that up.) Things that were misdemeanors years ago are now felonies…thanks to the zero tolerance movement.

  5. avatar Biatec says:

    They will keep fixing it until no one commits crimes. It will never happen. It will just get broader and more over reaching.

    I oppose this system in it’s entirety.

  6. avatar ron says:

    #MakeNICSGreatAgain!
    Woo HOO REGISTRIES!
    Cheer the Othering!

    Let’s dehumanize the mentally ill! They have NO Rights!

    Dear NSSF, this is how we get Universal Background Checks aka a registry which inevitably leads to….Anybody? Anybody? Confiscation.

    You’re not helping the cause. Repeal NFA34 and GCA68. Freedom is the way we roll in a Republic that calls itself “the land of the free and the home of the brave”. That should be your very simple agenda. This is the conversation we should be having. Find “prohibited person” or “gun free zone” in any constitution. I dare ya.

    Which genocide started with the following thought: THAT (minority) group doesn’t have basic human rights.? Why are we “Othering” people at all? Much less with the idiotic DSM99? Making whole groups of 2nd class citizens isn’t how to be either free or brave.

    Tell WalMart, Meijer, Kroger and the rest to stop selling mind bending SSRIs to their clients and watch these shootings plummet. Tell people to grow up and get over their feelings of inadequacy instead of crossing their mental wires with chemicals. Better yet, look into a thing called the Gospel. (*shocked face*) Find forgiveness and redemption.

    Registries of minorities isn’t a viable answer. I understand that NRA’s Frenchie was all about NICS in the 90s and the GOP has never rejected NICS. NewsFlash: It isn’t helping. Enforcing the tens of thousands of null and void laws isn’t the answer. Freedom is. At least, that’s what Americans used to say.

  7. avatar Cloudbuster says:

    The unintended takeaway: Never, ever speak to a “mental health professional.”

    1. avatar Swarf says:

      That’s it right there.

      “I’d like to seek treatment for my PTSD, but I’d like to keep the ability to defend myself and my family, so… I guess I’ll stay fucked up and armed in secret.”

      1. avatar jwm says:

        Back in the day we sought our therapy at the VFW.

        1. avatar Dude says:

          Back in my day VFW sponsored one of the local little league teams. We said it stood for Very Few Wins. We did always beat them. 😉

  8. avatar Ralph says:

    Yeah, nobody wants wackadoodles to have access to guns or any other weapons, like sharp knives or ropes or hammers.

    Will “fixing” NICS prevent nuts from getting their hands on weapons?

    Sure. And pigs will learn to fly, Jerry Nadler will learn to tell the truth and the NSSF will defend 2A.

    1. avatar Someone says:

      NSSF is not there to defend the 2A. They defend the industry.
      There is another large org that claims to defend the 2A, but it also supports NICS.

  9. avatar Matthew the Oilman says:

    ” I don’t believe in man made global warming”
    “You’re nuts”

    1. avatar Klaus Von Schmitto says:

      You WANT to own a gun?
      You’re nuts.
      So no guns for you mister.

    2. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

      Don’t laugh. I think that denying global warming is actually a law in England.

  10. avatar JoinGOA,FPC,SAF says:

    Mental Disorders: The Facts Behind the Marketing Campaign

    Mental illness is a farce no one except maybe GOD can properly diagnose who is nutty.

    National Shooting Sports Foundation is not pro 2a do not support them.. they are a bunch of FUDDs like the failed NRA!

    https://www.cchrint.org/psychiatric-disorders/

    “There are no objective tests in psychiatry-no X-ray, laboratory, or exam finding that says definitively that someone does or does not have a mental disorder.” “It’s bull—. I mean, you just can’t define it.” — Allen Frances, Psychiatrist and former DSM-IV Task Force Chairman

    “Virtually anyone at any given time can meet the criteria for bipolar disorder or ADHD. Anyone. And the problem is everyone diagnosed with even one of these ‘illnesses’ triggers the pill dispenser.” — Dr. Stefan Kruszewski, Psychiatrist

    The fact is, The American Psychiatric Association, the American Medical Association and the National Institute of Mental Health admit that there are no medical tests to confirm mental disorders as a disease but do nothing to counter the false idea that these are biological/medical conditions when in fact, diagnosis is simply done by a checklist of behaviors. Even the Executive Director of the nation’s leading mental health agency, the National Institute of Mental Health admits, “Unlike our definitions of ischemic heart disease, lymphoma, or AIDS, the DSM diagnoses are based on a consensus about clusters of clinical symptoms, not any objective laboratory measure.” Read more here:

    https://www.cchrint.org/psychiatric-disorders/psychiatristsphysicians-on-lack-of-any-medicalscientific-tests/

    1. avatar ChoseDeath says:

      You know, it’s people like you that make us all proud. I am anyway. I have no fucking clue how you have the time or know where to go to find things like this. All my research skills are of a clinical nature and confined to certain journals and books and sources for papers waiting for peer review. Thank you for sharing your knowledge with me, and, I hope, with us.

    2. avatar Dude says:

      And to top it off, it’s really a judge that decides, not a doctor.

  11. avatar GS650G says:

    If we are not willing to accept rulings on the mental health of people and at least keep them from buying guns over the counter then what is the alternative?
    Who wants a guy with proven mental issues to buy a gun in a store and have him commit crimes with it? The result is more calls to prevent the rest of us from buying guns, or even owning them.
    If you want the mentally ill to have 2A privileges be prepared to defend their actions too because that’s where it goes. People in this category can petition courts to change a judge’s mind.

    I don’t have a lot of faith in background checks done at a store nor do i believe the same people can’t arm up some other way. But if this bit of security theater relieves stress on the gun control dike I’m for it. Red flag laws don’t have this much process behind them as they are written.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      The people that want gun control are not going to stop with this or any other increment.

      They. Want. It. All.

    2. avatar ron says:

      Do the “mentally ill” also forfeit their free speech, free assembly, freedom from illegal search and seizure or other Rights? Do you realize how slippery the slope to seeing all deplorables as “mentally ill”? See, 2A isn’t a privilege as you state. Comprehend Natural Rights and your position is not viable. Can you define “unalienable”? https://tinyurl.com/yywpers6

    3. avatar Roman of Texas says:

      In the Soviet Union, they used to claim you were mentally ill if you didn’t believe in Communism. If we do this, we have to be careful, because we are opening the door to having anyone who doesn’t believe in (insert any issue here, like climate change, drugs, leftist or rightist beliefs) being labeled as “mentally” ill.

      Just a word of caution – my parents lived through this in Poland before they came here.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Bingo!!!

        Roman of Texas get it.

        The problem with prohibiting “mentally ill” people from purchasing firearms is that there are absolutely no constraints on what constitutes “mentally ill”. Any legislature can define, by fiat, that anyone is “mentally ill”, and thus ban anyone and everyone from possessing firearms.

    4. avatar John in Ohio says:

      “2A privileges”

      What the fuck are those? Hint: They aren’t “privileges”.

      “But if this bit of security theater relieves stress on the gun control dike I’m for it.”

      Ben Franklin had a saying for that way of thinking.

      1. avatar No One Special says:

        Our current system of laws make firearm ownership a privilege in many ways like it/admit it or not. This is regardless of how it’s supposed to be. If it were very meaningful to have it the way it is suppose to be than it it would be that way.

    5. avatar DesertDave says:

      There are several questions here that you need to look at.

      1. How do you determine if somebody is mentally ill? There is NO test for this. It is all opinion that is primarily based on psychiatry’s duty to Big Pharma to sell their mind debilitating drugs and drug the population.
      2. If you look at the majority of these mass shootings the perps were on said psych drugs. These drugs have homicide and suicide as adverse effects.
      3. I do not believe I can put my finger on one mass shooting that would have been stopped by this. I believe that all have legally purchased the firearms used or stolen them, thus bypassing the background check.
      4. So if this is a non-issue then what is the real issue? Yet another method to remove ones God given rights. It is not against the law to be “mentally ill”, what ever that means. This used to be called eccentric, now it is mentally ill. But as others have mentioned, since this is primarily an opinion not based on any facts, anyone could be considered to be mentally ill for almost any reason and thus have your rights taken away.

      If the left, the NRA, RINO’s or other fascists want to save us from something, it is a misdirect from what we really need saving from which is them!

  12. avatar ViejoTorro says:

    John Hopkins reported that 250,000 people die each year due to medical mistakeshttps://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/22/medical-errors-third-leading-cause-of-death-in-america.html&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiD4PrnzuzkAhXzHDQIHViwDrkQFnoECAsQAg&usg=AOvVaw2S29gEWS4oQw6ZHgwHbQii.
    That is with blood tests, ekg’s,x Rays, cat scans, MRI’s etc….
    So we expect reasonable out comes from a “scientific discipline” administered by individuals operating with out objective tests and no real supervision..
    Keep this in mind homosexuality and pms have been classified as mental illnesses by the AMA in many of our memories.

  13. avatar Johnny Go Lightly says:

    So when will the NSSF support terminating the “right” to vote by these mental defectives ? Or assembly or religion ? Any of these acts could pose a danger to others, eh ? Lets run down down all the amenndments and strike their right where appkicable. The NSSF is such a freedom loving bunch…

  14. avatar Nanashi says:

    This is how medical privacy dies: With thunderous applause from fake gun rights organizations.

  15. avatar barnbwt says:

    Remember when we were gonna trade Fix NICS for the Hearing Protection Act? I do.

    1. avatar Someone says:

      That’s how the gun control “compromises” work. They get something, we lose something.

      1. avatar DesertDave says:

        Correction:

        “… We lose everything!”

  16. avatar enuf says:

    Increased reporting of required info to the NICS is a step in the right direction. The next part is to respond to every denied purchase and either arrest the bad guy or clean up the NICS record.

    Fix shit and enforce existing laws!

  17. avatar Frank says:

    Why do they not back a BIDS system?
    Way better than NICS.
    Although both are still infringements.

    https://bidssystem.blogspot.com/

    https://www.gunlaws.com/BIDSvNICS.htm

  18. avatar That One Guy says:

    In other words, the list of people who are too dangerous to own a weapon, but not dangerous enough to lock up has grown.

    What a weird thing to be jubilant about.

  19. avatar Randy Jones says:

    This is a slippery slope. I recall reading of a lady, who called a state run suicide prevention hotline when she was 16, because of a failed relationship. When she was 28 she separated from an abusive spouse, got a TRO against him and because she still received verbal threats, she attempted to purchase a firearm. She was denied because of the past ‘possibly being a danger to herself’. She was also killed a week later by the same person that had the TRO.

    Knowing that many doctors tend to ask about firearms in the home when you become a new patient, and that many doctors seems to think firearms are dangerous in and of themselves, There needs to be some kind of mandated follow up to renew the mental health issues or sunset clause or something.

    My wife was a mental patient for years. As the one who cared for her, made sure she took e]her meds, made it to her doctors appointments, her doctor asked that I come in to discuss her progress. We spoke of that and life in general. When I next saw my personal physician, he asked if I was doing ok, or if the depression was getting worse. it seems that care givers often get depressed because of their loved ones, because I ride a motorcycle, I may have a death wish, because I hunt, I may enjoy killing animals, these three things could be a sign of trouble. His report didn’t say I had a problem but had the potential of developing a problem and should be watched. While my doctor understood me well enough to realize the report he had meant nothing, the psychiatrist could have easily got my carry permit suspended or guns removed from my safe if he had pushed things toward the police. I wasn’t his patient.

    I have great concerns about Red Flag Laws, doctor evaluations, and anonymous tips to instigate Red Flag Laws.

    1. avatar Tom says:

      Excellent points and all valid. Nanny state liberals have one goal, control over all and will use anything to gain it.

  20. avatar Tom says:

    The background check process should be improved by allowing individual citizens to anonymously access it for private gun sales.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email