the gun-control lawsuit that isn't

[acroyear]

A family is suing walmart because the store sold a gun to their mentally-disturbed daughter  who has a mental-health history and is on prescription drugs to control that which are purchased through the same walmart.  That daughter killed herself with the weapon.

Some are concerned that its a "gun control" lawsuit.  but it isn't.  its a privacy rights lawsuit, and its directed at the wrong defendant.

The truth is that the lawyer who took on their case didn't do his homework.  The restriction of mental-health records to the FBI is a Texas law (which 37 other states share), so the FBI had no way of having her name on the "don't sell a gun" list.  The restriction of a store using its prescription records for *any* other purpose is a federal law passed in 1996.  Walmart followed the law in both cases (well, by deferring to the FBI for the background check, and not looking up prescription records).

So Walmart was in no way at fault as they followed the law properly.  Even an appeal can't redirect the issue to the laws in question because they aren't aimed at the right defendants, nor could either law be overturned on constitutional issues.  Both would have to be changed through legislation.

And personally, I don't think they should be.

I do think there should be a way for parents or caregivers of mentally disturbed patients to at least  be able to petition to the FBI to have the patient put on the "don't sell a gun to them" list,, allowing some restrictions without having to have full-disclosure of the private records.  However, the FBI policy on this should be scrutinized carefully and personal interviews conducted to verify the claims of the guardians, lest it be subject to an NRA legal attack.

In the end, a suicide is a suicide, and regardless of how it was done, it likely would have happened anyways.  Continual intervention is the only real way to stop it; if you leave a person alone who wants to die, they'll find a way.

Comments

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

yes, but my hypothesis would be that the number of suicides (or at least attempts) wouldn't change. we had plenty of ways to do it before guns; we'd have plenty without them.

[thatliardiego.livejournal.com]

And as I noted over in kiltboy's post, the "instant" background checks do not cover mental health records, because the NRA, when creating the bill, specifically wrote language in that exclude them. Many mental health records are not computerized, and need to be checked by hand. If the check flags a person, the authorities have three days -- not three business days, but three days -- to complete the check. If they fail to complete the check in time, the default is that the person gets the gun.

People will always find ways to kill themselves, it is incumbent on society not to make it easier for them.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

in other words, even if the states *didn't* have laws forbidding the mental-health records from going to the feds, the feds *still* wouldn't have a right to reference them for making a "buy a gun" decision?

sheesh, ok, *NOW* i'm (back to being) pissed at the NRA.

[thatliardiego.livejournal.com]

The Brady Bill as originally written would have given authorities seven days -- the reason for the "waiting period" -- to go check mental records, as well as the BATF records (which were not computerized, purposely at the behest of the NRA in the 1986 McClure-Volkmer "Firearms Owner Protection Act"). This was rewritten by the gun lobby before final passage, where the "waiting period" was shortened to three days, and then phased out (via a sunset provision) in favor of "instant" background checks, which sacrifice safety for speed.

That is why the NRA claims to have "supported" background checks. They also tend to weaken all gun laws enough so that after a few years, they can claim "gun control laws don't work" because they were the ones to make sure they were weak or toothless.