Instant Criminal Background Check System Research Articles

Toward a Status Anxiety Theory of Macro-level Firearm Demand

Previous research has paid little attention to legal firearm demand, instead often focusing on illegal firearm demand. This study expands sociological research on firearms by theoretically identifying and empirically examining a new type of legal firearm demand, status anxiety demand, while also examining recreational and security firearm demand. We use unique background check data from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to measure firearm demand and test our hypotheses using random effects pooled time-series generalized least squares (GLS) regressions. Findings indicate that our measures for recreational demand and status anxiety demand both affect overall firearm sales, but that actual crime risk and the number of police in a state do not. We find that both increases in National Rifle Association (NRA) membership and Democratic Party strength in the federal government increase firearm demand, suggesting that changes in legal firearm demand are associated with political factors and not just recreational or self-defense motivations.

Mental Illness and Firearms Background Checks-Combatting Violence Without Inhibiting Care.

The history of American firearms legislation is one of tragedy and response. The Gun Control Act of 1968, prohibiting certain categories of individuals from possessing or purchasing firearms, was prompted by political violence. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, requiring background checks on prospective buyers via the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), memorialized an attempted presidential assassination. The NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, designed to strengthen the background check system, followed the mass shooting at Virginia Tech University. The latest initiatives aimed at curbing gun violence were announced by President Barack Obama on the heels of the tragic events in Newtown, Connecticut. Among the President’s 23 executive actions was a directive to “address unnecessary legal barriers” that prevent reporting “on people prohibited from gun ownership for mental health reasons.” In response, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently published a final regulation that amends the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule to enable disclosures to the federal background check system under specified circumstances. This Viewpoint analyzes the new rule, explores the nexus between mental health records and firearms background checks, and examines implications for psychiatrists. Federal law prohibits 9 categories of persons from shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving firearms or ammunition. One such category applies to individuals who (in now-antiquated terminology) have been either “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to a mental institution.” Such adjudications and commitments involve action “by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority.” While there is some judicial disagreement as to how much due process is required before the federal mental health prohibitor can be invoked, there is widespread consensus that “a mental health diagnosis does not, in itself,” trigger the prohibitor. Moreover, in most cases the treating psychiatrist is not the legal authority responsible for placing an individual in a prohibited class. This distinction between treatment and adjudication is a cornerstone of both the physician-patient relationship and the due process rights of mentally ill individuals. THE BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM The NICS was activated in 1998 to help enforce the firearms prohibitions under federal and state law by creating a mechanism to determine the eligibility of a prospective gun buyer at the point of sale. Licensed sellers are required to contact the NICS to relay identifying information about the customer. The Federal Bureau of Investigation checks the information against 3 databases to see if there is a record match and advises whether the sale may proceed. Federal agencies are required to report prohibited persons to the NICS, whereas states are incentivized via grants. The US Supreme Court has held that states may not be compelled to participate. The efficacy of the NICS is predicated on the currency and completeness of available data. In 2012,investigators examined the extent to which states had made mental health prohibiting information available to the NICS and found overall progress to be limited and uneven. Specifically, officials from half of the states studied cited privacy laws as an obstacle. The perception that HIPAA in particular created an impediment to NICS reporting formed the backdrop for the latest regulatory action.... Language: en

Responding to violence with guns: Mass shootings and gun acquisition

Although some sources have observed an increase in the number of gun purchases following mass shootings, empirical research investigating this pattern is limited. Appraisal Theory suggests that mass shootings contribute to fear of victimization through media exposure. Desire for self-protection is the primary reason many individuals own and purchase guns. This paper examines this link by assessing the effects of six mass shootings that took place in the 2000–2010 time period. This study examines effects for gun acquisition nationally and regionally as well as timing-specific patterns in gun acquisition following these events. Gun acquisition counts are approximated from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Results indicate a positive but delayed association between mass shootings and the number of NICS background checks. Implications of this finding for violence and possibilities for future research are discussed.

Oregon's Gun Relief Program for Adjudicated Mentally Ill Persons: The Psychiatric Security Review Board.

This article describes the State of Oregon's implementation of two programs designed to comply with federal gun laws regarding reporting individuals who have received mental health adjudications in criminal and civil courts. One mandate requires that states submit names of adjudicated individuals to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) while the second requires that the state establish a qualifying gun restoration program for those disqualified from gun ownership. In 2009, Oregon's Legislature developed an administrative approach to gun restoration and assigned the responsibility for conducting these hearing to the Oregon Psychiatric Security Review Board (PSRB). The PSRB is a state administrative board that has existed since 1977 and has been primarily focused on the supervision and treatment of adult and juvenile insanity acquittees. The gun restoration program began in 2010, but to date has only received three completed petitions requesting restoration of firearm rights. The article concludes with a discussion that surmises why very few of the Oregonians who are listed in NICS have submitted petitions for relief.

Restoration of Firearm Rights in New York.

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 encouraged states to create processes by which individuals who have lost their rights to firearm possession for mental-illness-related reasons could receive relief from restrictions. Over 20 states have created relief processes for this sub-group, but there still exists considerable state-by-state heterogeneity. The spectrum ranges from states that require a physician's opinion regarding appropriateness for restoration to those that rely solely on judicial proceedings without input from psychiatrists or other mental health professionals. This article reviews the restoration process in New York State, a model in which psychiatrists participate in the process of assessing whether an individual's firearm rights can be restored. It discusses the legislative background of these regulations, the specific policies and procedures governing the restoration process, and clinical considerations for the forensic evaluation.

APA Seeks Exclusion of Minors From Criminal Background Check System

Back to table of contents Previous article Next article Government NewsFull AccessAPA Seeks Exclusion of Minors From Criminal Background Check SystemMark MoranMark MoranSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:25 Apr 2014https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.pn.2014.4b26AbstractIn response to a proposed federal rule, APA points out that a diagnosis of mental illness is not indicative of a youngster’s mental health as an adult.APA is urging the U.S. Department of Justice not to require reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) of individuals who were “adjudicated as a mental defective” or involuntarily committed to a mental institution prior to reaching age 18.In a letter to the department in response to the proposed rule, which is titled “Amended Definition of ‘Adjudicated as a Mental Defective’ and ‘Committed to a Mental Institution,’ ” APA CEO and Medical Director Saul Levin, M.D., M.P.A., wrote, “Reporting is a fixed event that marks a person for life, while the clinical and developmental realities for persons under 18 are, in fact, dynamic, and the psychiatric issues they experience are often transitory. A policy that would designate a permanent status to an individual in this age group ignores this reality.” Levin added that as a child develops, a mental health clinician’s assessment of the child’s mental health status can change. “Recent research has demonstrated that the brain continues to change and develop throughout the teen years and into early adulthood,” he said. “Studies indicate that the adolescent period poses vulnerabilities to risk-taking behavior, but, importantly, that this is a temporary stage. As a result, adolescents are more likely to respond impulsively, utilizing a more primitive part of their brain, and are more likely to act out in ways that may cause them to be involuntarily committed to a mental institution or deemed mentally defective. The evaluation of a child with a behavioral disorder is difficult, and a childhood diagnosis of a mental health disorder will not necessarily characterize the individual’s health once he or she reaches adulthood. In fact, treatment in childhood for mental health issues may well increase the likelihood that an individual will reach adulthood without the kind of serious mental health issues that should be reportable to NICS.”Levin said that APA strongly recommends the definitions of “adjudicated as a mental defective” and “committed to a mental institution” not be expanded to include adjudications and involuntary commitments that occurred prior to age 18. “The negative consequences of reporting the adjudications and involuntary commitments one receives as a child or adolescent to NICS under the federal mental health prohibitor far exceed any value to society that can come from doing this,” he pointed out. “Just as we protect children who have been found guilty of committing crimes before the age of 18 from entering adulthood with a criminal record, we must protect children who have had mental health issues from being stigmatized by them into adulthood by having them reported to NICS.” ■The proposed rule is posted here. APA’s letter can be viewed here. ISSUES NewArchived

HHS Rule: Clinicians Do Not Have to Report Patients to Background Check System

The proposed regulations should not inhibit those who need mental health care from seeking it.

Firearm Laws: A Primer for Psychiatrists

Persons with mental illness or substance abuse have been perceived by the public to pose an increased risk of violence to themselves and others. As a result, federal and state laws have restricted the right of certain categories of persons with mental illness or substance abuse to possess, register, license, retain, or carry a firearm. Clinicians should be familiar with the specific firearm statutes of their own states, which describe the disqualifying mental health/substance abuse history and the role and responsibility of the psychiatrist in the process. State statutes vary widely in terms of the definitions of, and reporting requirements relating to, prohibited persons with mental illness or substance abuse. States also vary in the duration of the prohibition and in the timing of the appeals process. Some of the statutes have specific provisions for the removal of a firearm when a prohibited person is identified. States may maintain a mental health database that is used to determine firearm eligibility and may forward information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 will likely increase the number of persons identified as belonging to the prohibited class.

Law & Psychiatry: Gun Laws and Mental Illness: How Sensible Are the Current Restrictions?

This column describes federal and state laws to restrict access to firearms among people with mental illness. The contribution to public safety of these laws is likely to be small because only 3%-5% of violent acts are attributable to serious mental illness, and most do not involve guns. The categories of persons with mental illnesses targeted by the laws may not be at higher risk of violence than other subgroups in this population. The laws may deter people from seeking treatment for fear of losing the right to possess firearms and may reinforce stereotypes of persons with mental illnesses as dangerous.

People With Mental Illness Target of New Gun Law

People With Mental Illness Target of New Gun Law

Familial Hyperkalemic Hypertension

<h3>ABSTRACT</h3> <h3>Importance</h3> Firearm violence is a significant public health and safety problem in the United States. A surge in firearm purchases following the onset of the coronavirus pandemic may increase rates of firearm violence. <h3>Objective</h3> To estimate the association between changes in firearm purchasing and interpersonal firearm violence during the coronavirus pandemic. <h3>Design</h3> Cross-sectional time series study. We estimate the difference between observed rates of firearm purchases and those predicted by seasonal autoregressive integrated moving average models. Using negative binomial models, we then estimate the association between excess firearm purchases and rates of interpersonal firearm violence within states, controlling for confounders. <h3>Setting</h3> The 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia. Hawaii and Alaska are excluded due to missing or incomplete data. <h3>Exposure</h3> The difference between observed and expected rates of firearm purchases in March through May 2020, approximated by National Instant Criminal Background Check System records. <h3>Main Outcome and Measure</h3> Fatal and nonfatal injuries from interpersonal firearm violence, recorded in the Gun Violence Archive. <h3>Results</h3> We estimate that there were 2.1 million excess firearm purchases from March through May 2020—a 64.3% increase over expected volume, and an increase of 644.4 excess purchases per 100,000 population. We estimate a relative rate of death and injury from firearm violence of 1.015 (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.005 to 1.025) for every 100 excess purchases per 100,000, in models that incorporate variation in purchasing across states and control for effects of the pandemic common to all states. This reflects an increase of 776 fatal and nonfatal injuries (95% CI: 216 to 1,335) over the number expected had no increase in purchasing occurred. <h3>Conclusions and Relevance</h3> We find a significant increase in firearm violence in the United States associated with the coronavirus pandemic-related surge in firearm purchasing. Our findings are consistent with existing research. Firearm violence prevention strategies may be particularly important during the pandemic. <h3>KEY POINTS</h3> <h3>Question</h3> Is the coronavirus-related surge in firearm purchasing associated with changes in rates of interpersonal firearm violence? <h3>Findings</h3> This cross-sectional time series study suggests the recent increase in firearm purchases—an estimated 2.1 million excess purchases nationally between March and May 2020—is associated with a statistically significant increase in firearm violence. We estimate an increase of 776 fatal and nonfatal injuries (95% CI: 216 to 1,335) in the US over the number expected for those months had there been no increase in purchasing. <h3>Meaning</h3> During the coronavirus pandemic, an acute increase in firearm access is associated with an increase in firearm violence.

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act: Lessons in the Development and Implementation of Federal Policy

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (P.L. 103-159) was implemented in a two-stage process beginning in March 1994. During the act's 57-month interim phase, from March 1, 1994, to November 30, 1998, chief law enforcement officers in the United States conducted nearly 13 million handgun background checks, providing documentation that would prevent 312,000 sales to convicted felons and others who were ineligible to purchase firearms. Since November 30; 1998, when the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System became operational, thousands more firearm sales to ineligible buyers have been prevented. This article explores some of the issues surrounding the passage, implementation, and ramifications of this landmark legislation.