Our Lady of Peace Act - Gun Control
The following posting contains a transcript of a recently
televised discussion on Long Island's Channel 12 regarding controversial
federal gun control legislation that, unamended, would unintentionally
'profile' many Americans who have been hospitalized for mental health
treatment by turning their names over to the Department of Justice, as if they
were potential criminals. During the discussion, former NYAPRS President and
Clubhouse of Suffolk executive director Mike Stoltz extracts an
acknowledgement by the bill's House sponsor, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, of the
bill's weaknesses in this area, and a commitment by her, should the
House-passed bill be approved by the Senate and the President, to work for a
'technical change'. As of today, the bill remains on hold in the Senate.. but
could potentially be brought for a vote when Congress returns in mid-November.
Following the transcript is a recent NAMI alert on the bill.
Stay tuned.....
"At Issue" News 12 Long Island October 19-20
L.T. Lea Tyrrell -- News 12 moderator
C.M. Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy
M.S. Michael Stoltz, Executive Director, Clubhouse of Suffolk
Note: The show began with video and narration about the Our Lady of Peace Act
precipitant, the shooting of a priest and parishioner by Peter Troy, a
gentleman with a psychiatric disability. Video commentary included a speech by
Congresswoman McCarthy and commentary by Lou Cherry, Executive Director of the
Mental Health Association of Suffolk regarding the concerns of the mental
health community about the privacy of medical records and the Act's planned
energizing of reporting activities of the NICS system..
L.T. We already have many gun control laws in the books - How does Our Lady of
Peace Act… How does that change anything?
C.M. There is a lot of confusion about this particular bill. The bill really
is only enforcing the laws that are already on the books and that goes back to
1968 Gun Control Act. What happened is when that act went into place the
states did not follow through as far as giving the database that the states
would have to get to the NICS system. So all this bill does is take that law
but now back it up with the money to enforce it. That's all it does.
L.T. The database is actually supposed to identify felons, drug addicts,
domestic abusers, illegal immigrants, people who were involuntarily committed
to mental institutions and others who were illegally barred from having a gun.
What's happened is they depend on the states and the local municipalities to
provide them with that information. Do the states fall back on their ability
to do that because of their lack of technology?
C.M. They don't have the technology - I mean the states - New York State
happens to be very good. They have 86% compliance. We are one of the better
ones - some states only have 4% or 6%, so all we're saying is that we'll bring
the states up to compliance this way. The information gets to the NICS system
because the system is only as good as the information in it but also it will
be giving money to the court system now, so when there's misdemeanors or
felons convicted, that information goes right into the NICS system immediately
also. Also, but bringing in the INS so that those people who should not be
having guns because they are illegal aliens would fit under the category of
not being able to own a gun, because they're coming into this country. That
would be in the system also.
L.T. Why did you decide to call this the " Our Lady of Peace Act"?
C.M. Well, obviously because the shooting was done in my district and we lost
2 good people (a parishoner and a priest) and to me it was more of a memorial
to them and that is the only reason the bill went that way.
L.T. Interesting enough the word peace was used in the bill. My other guest
Michael Stoltz, Executive Director of Clubhouse of Suffolk. Michael, what is
Clubhouse of Suffolk?
M.S. We are a psychiatric rehabilitation and support agency in Suffolk County,
serving people whose lives are affected by serious mental illnesses.
L.T. Now I see for most of the part you're shaking your head and you agree for
the good portion of what Carolyn has to say but there's one part of it that
you don't necessarily agree with.
M.S. Absolutely. Let me first say that I'm anything but an opponent of gun
control and I applaud -- and many people in the mental health community
certainly -- applaud the Congresswoman for her work, her courageous work with
gun control; but we have a problem with one part of this bill. Where the
Congresswoman does point out -- that this only enforces language that was in
the bill of 1968 -- the implications today are a lot larger than they were in
1968. What the bill also says in it is, not only are people who are judicated
by the court as having a mental defect, but people who have a mental illness
and were involuntarily committed to a hospital. About 95% of those people are
people who suffer from things like depression, from disorders that there is
minimal to no risk of harm to other people. To be able to say that we are now
going to profile those people and put them on a list that goes to the Attorney
General from which they could never be removed is frightening to a lot of
people. We have a major problem in the mental health field. The problem is
that there is tremendous stigma and misinformation and misunderstanding about
serious mental illness. If we want to do something about the problem of people
with mental illness, we need to go beyond this act. We need to be able to pass
a Mental Health Parity bill. We need to be able to pass a good prescription
drug bill so that people get the medication and the treatment that they need
and we need to sure up the major gaps that were evidenced by the murder in the
"Our Lady of Peace Church". The major gaps that are in our community mental
health system. We don't need to be able to have an act that stigmatizes people
who have an illness through no fault of their own. We need to be able to
provide better treatment.
L.T. What are you afraid is going to happen to those people? How would you
think that this information would be used against them?
M.S. I've spent about 20 years of my life in mental health. People fear
getting help. Why do they fear getting help? They most often express "I am
ashamed" and "I don't want people to know". When you're in depression, one of
the symptoms of depression is thoughts and feeling about hurting yourself. If
you express that to a doctor, you may get involuntarily hospitalized, if the
doctor cannot help you to be hospitalized (voluntarily). This now creates a
list of people who have had lows in their illness and that is the language
from the 1968 version of the bill.
C.M. Unfortunately there is a lot of misunderstanding on this because we
worked with the mental health groups because they came in with their concerns
and we were concerned about it, too. Especially on a privacy issue. I
certainly have been working since I've been in congress on parity for mental
illness. It's something that no one down in Washington want to even talk about
and making sure that the patients can get the care that they need. This is not
geared at the mentally ill. It is not. People have to understand how the NICS
system works. Any information that goes into the database here in the state,
people aren't being handled by that. That it goes to the NICS system, no one
can get that information and nobody can go into the database to get that. That
is how the privacy is protected. I can understand how it's been misinterpreted
and I understand certainly how the media has portrayed it. That has not been
our intention. It caught my attention because of how Troy got his gun. But
when we started doing the research on how did he get the gun, we saw this
large loophole on all these categories. This was not supposed to be geared
towards one group. It's geared towards making sure any of the people in the 8
categories cannot get the gun because they're not…. Now again, this is when
you're judicated through the courts. It's very important that people
understand that we understand mental illness, even depression. A lot of people
go through that but when you say that once your records are in, they could
never be taken out - that is wrong. If you come up when you go for a NICS
check and you say denied, that's all it says. It doesn't say for what, it just
says denied. You are allowed to fight that. You are allowed to have your name
taken out of that database - you know - if you feel it's unfair. There is a
court case going on in the Supreme Court right now because of that. But I mean
people have the right to come out of the base but usually it's very, very
fine-tuned as far as the writing. That is why we put in to give extra coverage
on the privacy issue - was having the Attorney General make sure that
everything could be kept private. We don't want any of these records out for
anybody.
L.T. Michael, are you afraid though that people with mental illness might be
afraid to challenge something like that because they don't want to come out in
the first place?
M.S. Unfortunately one of the consequences of having a serious mental illness
- 60% of people have an onset between the ages of 17 and 25 and one major
consequences in our society is that you become poor and poor people don't
always have access to the legal kinds of resources that the congresswoman is
suggesting here. I really would like and again, we totally agree with the
Congresswoman's intent in this, but the language in this is frightening many
mental health groups and the National Mental Health Association has been very
vocal about this. The bill in that respect, in this one portion is flawed and
needs to be repaired.
Short Break
L.T. My guests Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy and Michael Stoltz of Clubhouse
of Suffolk, which helps people with mental illness.
Michael, you said previously that you are a supporter of gun control. You have
to agree to some extent that people with serious mental illness should not be
able to get their hands on guns?
M.S. When people violate the rights of another person, it's a criminal act and
when that happens, we should take all protections to keep guns out of their
hands whether they have a mental illness or not.
L.T. Alright, so how do we reconcile this then? Is there a way that…. Is there
something that the mental health community would find acceptable?
M.S. I think, as we were talking off camera - that the piece about having been
committed involuntarily to a hospital needs to be addressed and the
Congresswoman explained that it was very difficult to be able to alter any
part of the bill. The problem is the damage that that does as we're bringing
it back up 35 years later is tremendous to the mental health community and to
the efforts, to the hard work that we are doing to try to correct the myths
and the stigma that are out there for people with mental illness.
L.T. Now, Carolyn, this harkens back to something that's already in law
written back to 1968 and you had to really stay to the general letter of that
1968 law.
C.M. We did have to stay to the general letter but we did have concerns. Was
this going to change anything with the mental health groups? That's why when
it came through the judiciary committee; we had Barney Franks, Sheila
Jackson-Lee, Ms. Water… I mean, we're talking about people that really are so
liberal and they went point by point and Barney did meet with the different
groups and he came back and he said "Carolyn - it's not a concern", and I
understand, believe me, I'm very sensitive to mental illness. More than you
know, but I mean the whole thing comes down to we had to stay within the
writings of the 1968 gun control law and again, I wish the focus hadn't been
totally on this because there are so many - actually - I'm sure that you're
going to find that when these files are actually compiled to where they should
be, you're going to see more of domestic violence in there than anything else.
L.T. What's interesting - the reason why I think this particular issue popped
out was because - you had your most vocal critics in the mental health
community because you got NRA support on this didn't you?
C.M. Yes, I did.
L.T. Which is very surprising. So, I think that's why this area did come out
because this is where you got your opposition where most times you are usually
speaking out against the National Rifle Association.
C.M. But as you know, it's a pro-gun house and I knew that after losing the
gun show loophole bill that if I was going to get anything done and which we
have gotten some done. I mean, I've gotten other things done through the
committee, but this particular one I had a plan. My plan was going to the
Republicans, especially those NRA Republicans and just talking to them and
sitting down with them.
Mr. Sensenbrenner, who's in charge of the committee - he had some suggestions
and we just kept working at it. You know and that's something that you have to
do down in Washington but as long as I stayed within the language of the 1968
gun control act and didn't…. See this is the other reason, too. If I went
outside that language then that opens up another whole can of worms and then
the intent of what I was trying to do was by just bringing up the records to
speed for the instant check system. It would have been banished.
L.T. Now, that might have just answered the next question I was going to ask
which was: this is the United States, laws can be changed - but you're saying
- it would have taken much longer and it would have been a much harder fight
than just………
C.M. Oh - I doubt whether it would have passed. I can guarantee you that it
wouldn't have passed. I mean it's so hard to get anything that has to do with
guns or gun safety issues passed through Congress. It's almost impossible.
This is probably the first thing that's passed since Brady, as far as being on
the floor. So, that's what we're dealing with, but it's more of educating
the…..
L.T. The members of congress?
C.M. The members of congress. Hopefully, also educating…. I mean, we are going
to have another battle
L.T. I was going to say - Do you think this whole sniper on the loose in the
Washington D.C. area has gotten their attention?
C.M. Well, it's gotten their attention - you've heard, but we're talking about
this whole ballistic fingerprinting and everything else. They are already
coming out against it and there are some problems with that particular bill,
but we have it here in New York. It's already saved the police as far as
solving 700 crimes because we do have it.
L.T. Ballistic fingerprinting?
C.M. Ballistic fingerprinting. So, is it perfect? No, it's not - but the NRA
looks at it saying well you're going to go up for a national registry. But in
the bill, it actually says the gun manufacturers can keep all these records.
So when the ATF or the local police need the information, they would go to the
gun manufacturers. So, it's not even going to the government, but they are
also saying somebody has records of every gun in this country.
L.T. Michael, as I said, this is America and laws can be changed. Is this
something you see the mental organizations continuing to fight?
M.S. Just as we have been fighting for parity and for prescription drug bills
alongside the Congresswoman, we need to do this kind of education and
unfortunately it's through this bill that we're also…. That we need to be able
to get this message out there. People with serious mental illnesses are rarely
violent.
C.M. What I would say to you is if I can work with the Attorney General and if
I can have a technical change - a technical change made, I promise you that I
will look into that.
M.S. Well, we'd like to work with you on that.
L.T. Alright and that's that.
Source: Clubhouse of Suffolk, Channel 12 (Long Island)
NAMI E-News House Passes "Our Lady of Peace Act," Prospects in the Senate
Uncertain
NAMI E-News October 26, 2002
On October 16, the U.S. House of Representatives passed by voice vote
legislation authorizing funding to ensure that states and localities report
the names of individuals "adjudicated as mentally defective" with the FBI's
National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NCIC). Sponsors of the
legislation, known as "Our Lady of Peace Act" (HR 4757/S 2826), attempted to
expedite Senate passage late last week but were blocked in their effort to
achieve unanimous consent. Since then, both the House and Senate have recessed
until at least the week of November 18 when members of Congress will return
for a post-election "lame duck" session. It is expected that sponsors of HR
4757/HR 2826 will again attempt to push the bill through the Senate and on to
President Bush's desk where it likely would be signed into law.
During the current congressional recess, NAMI will be attempting to force
changes in the current version of the "Our Lady of Peace Act" to address
concerns raised about provisions in the bill that would erode the privacy of
individual's mental illness treatment status and reinforce existing stigma
regarding people with mental illness. NAMI will also be urging the Senate
Judiciary Committee to convene hearings on the bill to examine the potential
impact on privacy rights of individuals with mental illness and likelihood
that potential disclosure to the federal NCIC database might deter individuals
from seeking treatment. To date, neither the House nor the Senate have held
hearings on HR 4757/S 2826.
In an E-News message circulated on October 2, NAMI outlined a range of
concerns about HR 4757/S 2826. Included below is additional background
material and a restatement of the impact this legislation could have on
individuals with mental illness. During the current recess, NAMI advocates are
encouraged to share these concerns with their U.S. senators and urge them to
amend the current version of this legislation to ensure that the privacy
rights of consumers are not unfairly compromised as part of the effort to
ensure appropriate screening of individuals seeking to purchase firearms. All
members of Congress can be reached by calling the Capitol Switchboard toll
free at 1-800-839-5276 or at 202-224-3121 or online through
www.congress.org.
Background on "Our Lady of Peace Act"
Since 1968, federal law has required state and local government agencies to
report the names of persons "adjudicated as mentally defective" to the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which is responsible for conducting the
National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NCIC) for people seeking to
purchase firearms. However, most states and localities have never complied
with this law. HR 4757/S 2826 authorize a set of incentive grants to state and
local agencies to report these names. Although NAMI recognizes the importance
of screening individuals who wish to purchase guns, there is mounting concern
that this legislation contains overly broad language and has potential to
reinforce stigma and compromise the privacy of individuals with mental
illnesses.
The term "adjudication as a mentally defective," as defined in HR 4757/S 2826,
encompasses a variety of categories. While it is much narrower than all
individuals diagnosed with a mental illness, it does include all individuals
that have been involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility, without
regard to functional impairment, when the commitment occurred or the reason
for the commitment. Additionally, any determination (formal or otherwise) by a
governmental agency that a person is a danger to themselves as a result of a
mental disorder or illness would serve as a basis for reporting their name to
the FBI's NCIC. Likewise, a determination that a person lacks capacity to
contract or manage their own affairs would also trigger a disclosure to the
NCIC.
Second, as currently drafted HR 4757/S 2868 is lacking adequate protections to
safeguard the privacy of individuals whose names are reported to the FBI for
maintenance in the NCIC system. Specifically, the bill directs the Attorney
General to work with states, local law enforcement and the mental health
system to establish regulations and protocols for protecting privacy. However,
the bill contains no specific parameters or guidelines for doing so. Finally,
in NAMI's view the very use of the language "adjudicated as a mentally
defective" in S 2826 is outdated and highly stigmatizing of people with mental
illness and would possibly deter some people from seeking necessary treatment.
Source: NAMI E-News
This 'Mental Health E-News' posting is a service of the New York Ass'n of
Psychiatric Rehabilitation Services, a statewide coalition of people who use
and/or provide community mental health services dedicated to improving
services and social conditions for people with psychiatric disabilities by
promoting their recovery, rehabilitation and rights.
To join our list, e-mail us your request and, where appropriate, the name of
your organization to NYAPRS@aol.com.
Last Updated on
04/14/04
webmaster@namiscc.org
