"Mental health" bill, now law. Clarification?

[anactivegrenade 25]

Now, the state has access to private records, whereas before, only public records of involuntary treatment could have flagged you against gun ownerhsip.

 

So, can someone please tell me whether or not something minor as seeing a shrink to have someone to talk to, voluntarily, can now flag you against gun ownership in NJ?

[wink-_-wink 1]

I was under the impression that this would violate HIPPA?  The way it was explained to me is the mental checks are done soley in your county.  If you live in cape may county but got mental health issues in burlington county, cape may would not have access to those records.  With the new bill it seems to change that.  Again though I don't see how this escapes HIPPA and in turn will halt many people from seeking help in regards to mental issues...

[mipafox 438]

I would think it would flag you nationwide, no? The "N" in "NICS" is not for New Jersey.

 

And it doesn't matter what it means today. They aren't going to throw away the information, and the standards will surely change to our detriment in the future.

[plode 0]

So what happens if you see someone who is a life coach who also happens to be a therapist?  Are you now barred from owning firearms because you were trying to find some direction in your life?

My brother asked me this the other day after I was explaining some of the bills that were sitting on Christie's desk. 

[mipafox 438]

Wait a minute.

 

I thought there were people here clamoring for tightening mental health checks after Newtown?

 

Do I detect a bit of buyer's remorse?

 

I fucking told you so.

[anactivegrenade 25]

So, on a federal level, anyone whos had anything to do with mental-health treatment, is now barred from purchasing firearms - anywhere in the country? (because of this NJ law?)

[mipafox 438]

 

So, on a federal level, anyone whos had anything to do with mental-health treatment, is now barred from purchasing firearms - anywhere in the country? (because of this NJ law?)

 

 

I don't think federal law has changed.

 

Yet.

[anactivegrenade 25]

But if these records are reported to the National Instant Check Service.....????

[MeanderingCuban 8]

So, on a federal level, anyone whos had anything to do with mental-health treatment, is now barred from purchasing firearms - anywhere in the country? (because of this NJ law?)

Not so much. But what happens is that NJ dumps their mental health treatment records into NICS. So now if you were treated in NJ and they dump your record into NICS you will be denied in any state.

[mikeyjones 88]

But if these records are reported to the National Instant Check Service.....????

 

So yes if you have had treatment in NJ, you will not be able to get a gun in any other state, theoretically.

 

EDIT: Rojasj, beat me by a second.

[MeanderingCuban 8]

So, on a federal level, anyone whos had anything to do with mental-health treatment, is now barred from purchasing firearms - anywhere in the country? (because of this NJ law?)

As a follow up. This works on a national level because people move from state to state.  So if you lived in NJ and were treated your record goes into NICS. If someone from TX moves to NJ, gets treated while living in NJ thier record gets dumped into NICS. Now anywhere they go it's denied.

[anactivegrenade 25]

Not so much. But what happens is that NJ dumps their mental health treatment records into NICS. So now if you were treated in NJ and they dump your record into NICS you will be denied in any state.

 

Yes, that is what I meant. Being treated in NJ, then being affected nationwide.

 

Guys, I'd like to say that the People's Republik of New Jersey has royally f*cked us all in the a**.

[mipafox 438]

Federal law has not changed.

 

Federal disqualifiers are fairly specific. "Receiving mental health treatment" is not a catch-all federal disqualifier.

 

But it will be soon enough. Or, incrementally, at least.

 

Further, some states have stricter requirements regarding mental health issues for not only ownership, but more often for carry permits. And many states have "character and reputation" outs for carry permits that are highly discretionary.

 

So, NJ reporting non-committal/non-judicial mental health treatment does NOT by default disqualify you nationwide. But it can give you a hard time in other states, even if your treatment is not a statutory disqualifier, and we all know how the federal government just loves expanding all sorts of lists nowadays, many of them secret.

 

We are becoming a communist leaning socialist state. And we do know that mental health has always been the discretionary tool of oppression for such regimes. And they are doing it now with vets and VA patients with no statutory authority.

[wink-_-wink 1]

Federal law has not changed.

 

Federal disqualifiers are fairly specific. "Receiving mental health treatment" is not a catch-all federal disqualifier.

 

But it will be soon enough. Or, incrementally, at least.

 

Further, some states have stricter requirements regarding mental health issues for not only ownership, but more often for carry permits. And many states have "character and reputation" outs for carry permits that are highly discretionary.

 

So, NJ reporting non-committal/non-judicial mental health treatment does NOT by default disqualify you nationwide. But it can give you a hard time in other states, even if your treatment is not a statutory disqualifier, and we all know how the federal government just loves expanding all sorts of lists nowadays, many of them secret.

 

We are becoming a communist leaning socialist state. And we do know that mental health has always been the discretionary tool of oppression for such regimes. And they are doing it now with vets and VA patients with no statutory authority.

This is exactly what I was looking up at this very moment.  I was too figuring that being treated is not an insta ban.  Even in NJ having a mental illness or being treated by a facility is not a disqualifier.  All it does is require a little more work.  Basically something from the doctor saying your not dependant on meds, your not a harm to yourself or others.  Once you get that you should be fine.  It may slow your process but they are not coming to confiscate your stuff simply because you spoke to a doc

[mipafox 438]

 

This is exactly what I was looking up at this very moment.  I was too figuring that being treated is not an insta ban.  Even in NJ having a mental illness or being treated by a facility is not a disqualifier.  All it does is require a little more work.  Basically something from the doctor saying your not dependant on meds, your not a harm to yourself or others.  Once you get that you should be fine.  It may slow your process but they are not coming to confiscate your stuff simply because you spoke to a doc

 

 

Not necessarily.

 

If you are adjudicated you won't get your guns back with a note from your doctor. You wil be federally prohibited. I think involuntary committals are the same, including simple short evaluations, but I don't know if the latter is just state law or federal law because I never had reason to look into it.

 

Notes from your doctor only work for regulatory agencies, such as the VA - to ban your firearm ownership with no statutory authority or due process.

 

There is no doctor's note that will restore a federal disqualifier.

 

If it is not a federal disqualifier, but a state of NJ issue, I have no idea how that works.

[anactivegrenade 25]

So now we have to wait and see how this all happens in application/reality, and what kind of appeals process will be made for those who are flagged?

[wink-_-wink 1]

Also the bill says that the release of CERTAIN documents to NICS... I would expect clarity in that area...

[Eff P 0]

What if an NJ resident got treatment in NY or PA or DEL?  I'm not sure if they already do the same thing (probably not), but would your record be sent over to NJ if you sought treatment in another state.  

 

Or...if you got treatment in a state like Texas of Wyoming 5 years ago, would NJ then send that info over to NICS?

[mipafox 438]

Most (all?) states do not send medical information to NICS that is neither an adjudication nor a committal.

 

I don't think any of them send that information to your state government.

 

None of this really matters, since the federal government will have all of our medical records, retroactively to the beginning of time, soon enough. And they do whatever they want with them, and share them with whomever they want.

[5th4x4 0]

So, can someone please tell me whether or not something minor as seeing a shrink to have someone to talk to, voluntarily, can now flag you against gun ownership in NJ?

 

 

So what happens if you see someone who is a life coach who also happens to be a therapist?  Are you now barred from owning firearms because you were trying to find some direction in your life?

 

Both of these situations are real-life concerns, since they are extremely broad in their scope (if they are truly part of the bill, of course).

The former was specifically addressed by the OP as the primary basis for this thread, and yet no one has authoritatively referenced any part of the bill that specifically addresses that concern (nor the second concern I quoted here).

 

Therefore unless any of you can decipher the legalese of this law to conclude that the discussion of "unresolved mommy issues" or "marriage counseling" is a basis for delaying or denying gun ownership, it would appear that the scope of this bill is well beyond "life coach" counseling.

 

So perhaps it would be most beneficial to address and discuss the actual law, and how that law impacts those of us who are unfortunate enough to be ruled by this idiot state.

But getting outraged over speculation is simply outrage for the sake of being outraged (<<< and that might actually get you ensnared straight into the the Mental Health Bill that you are so enraged about in the first place)

 

: P

 

A very wise man once said,"Trust but verify".

[mipafox 438]

 

Both of these situations are real-life concerns, since they are extremely broad in their scope (if they are truly part of the bill, of course).

The former was specifically addressed by the OP as the primary basis for this thread, and yet no one has authoritatively referenced any part of the bill that specifically addresses that concern (nor the second concern I quoted here).

 

Therefore unless any of you can decipher the legalese of this law to conclude that the discussion of "unresolved mommy issues" or "marriage counseling" is a basis for delaying or denying gun ownership, it would appear that the scope of this bill is well beyond "life coach" counseling.

 

So perhaps it would be most beneficial to address and discuss the actual law, and how that law impacts those of us who are unfortunate enough to be ruled by this idiot state.

But getting outraged over speculation is simply outrage for the sake of being outraged (<<< and that might actually get you ensnared straight into the the Mental Health Bill that you are so enraged about in the first place)

 

: P

 

A very wise man once said,"Trust but verify".

 

 

So, as we have, without a doubt, added facts to this discussion, accurate and verifiable, you have criticized us and also added nothing at the same time.

 

I defer to your expertise. Have at it to do something more than we have.

[5th4x4 0]

   

 

So, as we have, without a doubt, added facts to this discussion, accurate and verifiable, you have criticized us and also added nothing at the same time.

 

I defer to your expertise. Have at it to do something more than we have.

My statements are no less fact-based or opinion-oriented than any other here.

But if my suggestion to address the repercussions of this law based on the actual bill itself comes across as criticism to you, then I guess I missed the point of the OP's thread.

[Cmor1701d 0]

Check the FixNICS website http://www.fixnics.org/factinfo.cfm

 

"States must improve the NICS database by submitting any and all records establishing an individual is a prohibited person, such as mental health records showing someone is an "adjudicated mental defective" or involuntarily committed to a mental institute, as well as records showing someone is the subject of a domestic violence protective order, a drug addict or subject to another prohibited category.ii

 

The firearms industry has a long record of supporting background checks. The NSSF supported background checks prior to the passage in 1993 of the Brady Act that created a background check system and NICS in 1998. "

 

Now check the state rankings. http://www.fixnics.org/staterankings.cfm

 

NJ is already reporting most relevant records. Part of the time delay for P2P is waiting on the mental health check from every county you ever lived in in NJ. When I checked on my P2P last week I found out that my current county (Somerset) had not reported yet. Even the detectives I've spoken to have said that if there was an online check like for NICS the approval time would greatly improve.

[kman 56]

Here is the bill:

 

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2012/Bills/A4000/3717_R2.HTM

 

The bill is essentially an amendment of an earlier enacted statute, so the new stuff is in brackets and underlined.

 

It is very vague.  It basically 1) adds an exception to the confidentiality of mental health records (to allow them to be transmitted to the NICS system), 2) says that the records the state does have shall be transmitted to NICS, and 3) says that the NJ Attorney General needs to work with the Superintendent of the State Police and the Administrative Office of the Courts to determine who is barred under federal or state law from possessing firearms, and transmit that to the NICS system.

 

So it is very very vague.  I wonder what, if anything, NICS is going to be able to do with (2) above - a huge stack of miscellaneous records.  Are they going to comb through them and try and find names?

 

The big thing here is (3) above.  The NJSP, NJAG and NJ Court Administrative Office is going to get together and comb the medical records and grab names and submit them to NICS.  This could turn into a huge dump of names.  If these records lack social security numbers or driver license numbers, a lot of people are going to have their names added to the NICS banned list because they have the same name as someone appearing in one of these records.

 

The statute doesn't say how far back they are going to go, and how specifically the records have to ID the person beyond simple name.  No indication that they need to identify a SS number or DL number, or anything else.  There is no standard in the bill as to how definitely someone has to be identified by the records, or whether they were committed by a judge or sought treatment on a voluntary basis, whether they were actually staying at the place or just an outpatient, or anything really.  This could just turn out to be one huge dump of names into the NICS system.

 

Doesn't look like private psychologist records would be affected here though.  It only addresses people getting help in a "noncorrectional instutiton under Title 30 of the Revised Statutes" which I believe are NJ State psychiatric facilities.

[mipafox 438]

 

My statements are no less fact-based or opinion-oriented than any other here.

But if my suggestion to address the repercussions of this law based on the actual bill itself comes across as criticism to you, then I guess I missed the point of the OP's thread.

 

 

Your statements provided no input to the discussion at hand so I'm not sure why anybody would evaluate them under the criteria of being fact based or opinion oriented. You just said we are all full of shit and should read the law. I expected this would be followed by something of value. I was wrong.

[5th4x4 0]

   

 

Your statements provided no input to the discussion at hand so I'm not sure why anybody would evaluate them under the criteria of being fact based or opinion oriented. You just said we are all full of shit and should read the law. I expected this would be followed by something of value. I was wrong.

I have zero interest in internet piss fights. 

[Vini 0]

Now check the state rankings. http://www.fixnics.org/staterankings.cfm

 

Wow, some interesting numbers. 

NJ population 8.86 million - 237,910 records 

CA population 38.04 million - 529,053 records 

TX population 26.06 million - 217,582 records 

NY population 19.57 million - 189,953 records 

PA population 12.76 million - 651,243 records 

[mipafox 438]

 

Wow, some interesting numbers. 

NJ population 8.86 million - 237,910 records 

CA population 38.04 million - 529,053 records 

TX population 26.06 million - 217,582 records 

NY population 19.57 million - 189,953 records 

PA population 12.76 million - 651,243 records 

 

 

The PA number is very interesting. With only 13 MM people, we have more mental health records submitted than any other state has total CC permits issued to their residents, only to be outdone by having more LTCF issued to PA residents than mental health records submitted.

 

We have the most people carrying and the most whackos LOL

[MartyZ 693]

Here is the bill:

 

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2012/Bills/A4000/3717_R2.HTM

 

The bill is essentially an amendment of an earlier enacted statute, so the new stuff is in brackets and underlined.

 

It is very vague.  It basically 1) adds an exception to the confidentiality of mental health records (to allow them to be transmitted to the NICS system), 2) says that the records the state does have shall be transmitted to NICS, and 3) says that the NJ Attorney General needs to work with the Superintendent of the State Police and the Administrative Office of the Courts to determine who is barred under federal or state law from possessing firearms, and transmit that to the NICS system.

 

So it is very very vague.  I wonder what, if anything, NICS is going to be able to do with (2) above - a huge stack of miscellaneous records.  Are they going to comb through them and try and find names?

 

The big thing here is (3) above.  The NJSP, NJAG and NJ Court Administrative Office is going to get together and comb the medical records and grab names and submit them to NICS.  This could turn into a huge dump of names.  If these records lack social security numbers or driver license numbers, a lot of people are going to have their names added to the NICS banned list because they have the same name as someone appearing in one of these records.

 

The statute doesn't say how far back they are going to go, and how specifically the records have to ID the person beyond simple name.  No indication that they need to identify a SS number or DL number, or anything else.  There is no standard in the bill as to how definitely someone has to be identified by the records, or whether they were committed by a judge or sought treatment on a voluntary basis, whether they were actually staying at the place or just an outpatient, or anything really.  This could just turn out to be one huge dump of names into the NICS system.

 

Doesn't look like private psychologist records would be affected here though.  It only addresses people getting help in a "noncorrectional instutiton under Title 30 of the Revised Statutes" which I believe are NJ State psychiatric facilities.

 

If i'm reading this correctly, they did not add any new disqualification factors.  What they are saying is to send all records to NICS which fall under the existing disqualification factors.  I hope this is the case, if not then we are all screwed.

[anactivegrenade 25]

mipafox, what 5th4x4 is saying is that the previous posts on this thread did not include actually quotes of the bill, thus not giving us some concrete evidence to look at. kman just refrenced the bill.

 

Doesn't look like private psychologist records would be affected here though.  It only addresses people getting help in a "noncorrectional instutiton under Title 30 of the Revised Statutes" which I believe are NJ State psychiatric facilities.

This is what worried me the most. Although the rest of your post scares me, especially of the vagueness and power of this new law, this is what I was looking for.

 

I would find it Orwellian and 1984-esque if they had access to private doctor's records and used that to disqualify people.

 

I'm calling Evan Nappen's office at 9am to let him know some of our concerns addressing this bill. Hopefully he will be able to give this law review and help us with understanding it further.