How does a name get on the BAD NCIC list?

[ulwbob]

My ex wife (25 years) has been judged by the Soc Security people to be totally and permanently disabled because of her severe bipolar disease. She receives a monthly SSI check and can't hold a job. She is on a cabinet full of drugs and is boarderline stable as long as her drugs are balanced. Until recently has lived on her own and was even still driving. Not any more. Does this situation equate to being "adjuged to be mentally incompetent" in such a way that her name would appear as one of those individuals who would fail a NCIC check to be able to buy a firearm? IMHO there is no way in H*** that she should be able to legally buy a gun of any caliber or length. Is there a way to notify the government to check their own records and add her name to the list?

[JediSkipdogg]

The specific disqualifications related to mental health are quite narrow. Under federal law, an individual is prohibited from buying or possessing firearms if they have been “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to a mental institution.” A person is “adjudicated as a mental defective” if a court — or other entity having legal authority to make adjudications — has made a determination that an individual, as a result of mental illness: 1) Is a danger to himself or to others; 2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs; 3) Is found insane by a court in a criminal case, or incompetent to stand trial, or not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. A person is “committed to a mental institution” if that person has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution by a court or other lawful authority. This expressly excludes voluntary commitment. If a person falls under one of these two categories, they are prohibited from purchasing and possessing firearms for life.

Copied from here since it said it better than I ever could.

[ulwbob]

So I am guessing the Soc Sec Administration is therefore considered competent enough to decide to give away our collective tax money to a legitimately diagnosed permanently bipolar mentally messed up person but that same person has not necessarily simultaneously then been “adjudicated as a mental defective” because it wasn't decided in a court of law but in a "court of bureaucracy"?

I just hope she doesn't get off her meds and decide to go buy a gun. She's emotionally up and down enough to use it on herself if the lack of medications, emotional status and opportunity all align. MENTAL PROBLEMS IS WHERE THE LAWMAKERS SHOULD CONCENTRATE THEIR EFFORTS instead of making more laws to make life more difficult for the rest of us. Two or three licensed MD's familiar with the case should be able to confirm her name should be on the list. Note I said NOT a single doctor should be able to do it. That would be ripe for abuse but if 2-3 doctors agree and the Soc Sec diagnosis is what it is in this case it shouldn't have to go to court. Every one of the school shootings and most of the other mass killings I can remember were done by people who were, in some way, off their proverbial rocker. Do we have to wait until she, in this case, wipes out the nursing staff or herself because she is depressed some day in the future? There should at least be some way to submit a name to the county prosecutor for investigation of a legitimate case.

[JediSkipdogg]

So I am guessing the Soc Sec Administration is therefore considered competent enough to decide to give away our collective tax money to a legitimately diagnosed permanently bipolar mentally messed up person but that same person has not necessarily simultaneously then been “adjudicated as a mental defective” because it wasn't decided in a court of law but in a "court of bureaucracy"?

That's one way to put it.

I just hope she doesn't get off her meds and decide to go buy a gun. She's emotionally up and down enough to use it on herself if the lack of medications, emotional status and opportunity all align. MENTAL PROBLEMS IS WHERE THE LAWMAKERS SHOULD CONCENTRATE THEIR EFFORTS instead of making more laws to make life more difficult for the rest of us. Two or three licensed MD's familiar with the case should be able to confirm her name should be on the list. Note I said NOT a single doctor should be able to do it. That would be ripe for abuse but if 2-3 doctors agree and the Soc Sec diagnosis is what it is in this case it shouldn't have to go to court. Every one of the school shootings and most of the other mass killings I can remember were done by people who were, in some way, off their proverbial rocker. Do we have to wait until she, in this case, wipes out the nursing staff or herself because she is depressed some day in the future? There should at least be some way to submit a name to the county prosecutor for investigation of a legitimate case.

The problem is what is there are thousands off their rocker that pose no threat. I have a good friend that when she's on her meds she's great. If she's off the meds, she's wacko, but poses no threat to anyone that I've ever seen. Andrea Yates is another classic more famous case. When she was on the meds she could fool anyone that she was crazy. Yet, only after she stopped taking the meds did she turn crazy into killing her five children. So where do you draw the line on medication?

What about general depression? I'm a diabetic and therefore know hundreds, if not thousands of other diabetics through various groups. Many take a depression medication due to the diabetes. I think 2-3 doctors could diagnose and agree on depression so where do you draw the line there? It's a sketchy area and if you step to far, what's next? How far is too far?

There is a process if you wish to pursue it. You file a civil commitment process of mental illness through the local probate court. I'm guessing it has to be the county where she lives but anyone can file it. They will go through a screen process with a caseworker and if all works out, an affidavit will be sworn and the process will enter the courts once all the facts are gathered. If she's then deemed mentally defective, she'll be placed on the list. If you have such a passion to get her on the list, I would highly recommend you look at this option.

[ulwbob]

Thanks for the lead on how to get the process started. I knew there had to be SOME kind of method.

[WestonDon]

There is a process if you wish to pursue it. You file a civil commitment process of mental illness through the local probate court. I'm guessing it has to be the county where she lives but anyone can file it. They will go through a screen process with a caseworker and if all works out, an affidavit will be sworn and the process will enter the courts once all the facts are gathered. If she's then deemed mentally defective, she'll be placed on the list. If you have such a passion to get her on the list, I would highly recommend you look at this option.

Of course by doing so you seriously irritate an unstable, possibly homicidal wacko. Not sure I would want to poke that bear. But, to quote another poster, "life is replete with choices".

I understand your position and your concern is valid. That said IMHO mental fitness and firearms should never even be part of the same conversation. That is a very slippery slope that I for one do not want to go down further than we already have. The reality of the situation is that there are a lot of wackos out there and there is no sure way to keep firearms out of their hands. That is the price of freedom and I accept that price. That is also why I carry guns.

[JediSkipdogg]

Of course by doing so you seriously irritate an unstable, possibly homicidal wacko. Not sure I would want to poke that bear. But, to quote another poster, "life is replete with choices".

I think the process includes a lot of behind the scenes before it ever gets to a court room. We once did it at work for a resident that we were highly concerned about. The process was not easy and was a lot of work before they even knew we were trying to get them committed. A few times we almost were booted out of the process until another call stating our point came in. I believe we eventually did get them committed and I'm not sure what happened after that.

I understand your position and your concern is valid. That said IMHO mental fitness and firearms should never even be part of the same conversation. That is a very slippery slope that I for one do not want to go down further than we already have. The reality of the situation is that there are a lot of wackos out there and there is no sure way to keep firearms out of their hands. That is the price of freedom and I accept that price. That is also why I carry guns.

Well said. Very well said.