Because it points a finger at a mentally ill person?

or

Because it shows the utter ignorance and biases of a Police captain who says that mental illness illness can be determined via photograph?

‘The man's visibly unstable.' …” he said Thursday. “Look at that picture on TV, or whatever.

Gun stores should be liable for selling weapons to unstable individuals.

If mental health professionals get a pass on accountability I can't see why a gun store employee or owner should be held to a higher standard. It's disappointing that a police supervisor would believe that mental illness can be determined from a photograph.

The APA specifically states that appearance is not sufficient to diagnose mental illness. We shouldn't expect shop keepers, or law enforcement, to be able to do what mental health professionals cannot do.

When we see law enforcement and shopkeepers claim to be able to do what mental health professionals cannot do we should consider the accuracy of those actions to be suspect.

There is nothing in evidence about how the man looked or acted when he bought the gun.

To suggest that he manifested at the time of purchase the same thoughts, emotions or behaviors that might have suggested to officers that he was unstable is a presumption. On available evidence that introduces a procter hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

What we know is that the police captain suggests to reporters that all that is needed to see the guy is mentally ill is a picture shown on tv.

from personal experience I can tell you that drastic behavior swings are the norm/

...to be the de-facto arbiters of mental health?

All the gun store owners I know would probably refuse the sale if the guy seemed crazy, but the brief encounter in the store is probably not enough time to assess a person's mental health. It's not like there's a breathalyzer for schizophrenia.

That said, I do think the mental health aspects of NICS checks need to be expanded. Make it scientific and backed by hard evidence, not some gun store owner's perception.

all it takes is one big data base containing the names and social security numbers of anyone ever diagnosed as being any kind of dangerously insane. This data base gets cross checked by the BATFE when the FFL holder calls the BATFE with the prospective purchaser's form 4473 information. It should be mandatory that dangerously crazy people be put into this database and once they attempt to purchase a firearm, they should be picked up by local LEOs where the process of involuntary commitment can be initiated.

either intentionally or accidentally. Unfortunately, lots of things slip through the cracks of the healthcare system. Electronic charting/record keeping is being mandatorily implemented across the country and could probably help with this things like this eventually.

?

But it's hard to miss a court finding of mental incompetence, which is how you get flagged by NICS.

I was under the impression that he simply "looked crazy".

For all the limitations of NICS, that is the procedure. I presume that due process will be followed no matter the changes.

1. It grants medical doctors judicial power to bar a patient from exercising a civil right, which flies in the face of due process.
2. It discourages those who need care from seeking it, for fear that a doctor will unilaterally remove their rights.
3. It creates a permanent disability based on what may be (or have been) an entirely temporary condition.
4. It ignores the fact that patients are individuals, and a simple yes/no diagnosis does not take into account the severity of their illness, the duration of their illness, any risk or history of violence, success of treatment, etc.

I agree that we can improve the way that NICS deals with mental illness, but I think there are better ways to do it. Here's my suggestion from another thread:

If a psychiatric doctor believes that a person is unfit for gun ownership by reason of mental illness, I believe he should be able to request that a judge or panel place a disqualifying order on them. This might be the result of a consensual decision within a voluntary treatment program, it could be done following an arrest (i.e., the police arranging for a psych doctor to see a suspect), or by referral from a general practitioner, or whenever sufficient reason exists to believe a person may be unfit. An expedited hearing would be scheduled, and the patient and doctor would both have the opportunity to present evidence for or against disqualification, the burden of proof being on the doctor and not the patient. If the evidence is convincing, the disqualifying order should be issued and entered into a new category of the NICS list. After a year of disqualification, or however long a period the legislature chooses, the patient should be able to request a hearing to remove the disqualification, and a new hearing would be scheduled. This time, the burden of proof would be on the patient to demonstrate that the previously-valid disqualification is no longer necessary. If the court finds that the disqualified person is no longer a risk to public safety, the disqualifying order would be reversed and removed from the NICS database.

If you can lose gun rights at the slightest suggestion that you're a bit off -- it could discourage people who need help from seeking it. You could have a hard-core anti-gun psychiatrist who thinks nobody should have guns and just inserts everyone he sees into the NICS system. On the other hand, if you could sue that psychiatrist for defamation, then maybe no psychiatrists would flag anyone.

It's not an easy solution. I wonder if maybe there's a way to voluntarily put oneself on the list temporarily, on the advice of a mental health professional. If they can get the person to a lucid state where they realize they could be a danger, some might do it. And some is better than none.