Why Mental Health Records Don't Stop Gun Ownership: A Health Privacy Perspective

Recent events and associated discussions around mental health and gun ownership in the US often highlight a disconnect in how health records and privacy laws intersect with gun control policies. To understand why individuals with mental health problems can still own guns, it's essential to delve into the legal and social implications surrounding privacy, health records, and gun control laws.

Privacy and Health Records

Mental health records, like all health records, are protected by privacy laws such as HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) in the United States. These laws exist to ensure that sensitive health information remains confidential, preventing unauthorized access and disclosure. While privacy is a critical concern, it can also present barriers in situations where gun control is necessary, creating a complex issue.

Gun Control and Due Process

According to federal law in the United States, only individuals who have been legally determined to be a "prohibited person" due to mental health issues can be barred from owning a gun. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments require that any such determination must follow due process. There are two primary ways an individual may be declared a prohibited person:

Mental Defective Adjudication

A court, board, commission, or legitimate authority must determine that the individual is a danger to themselves or others, lacks the mental capacity to manage their own affairs, has been found insane in a criminal case, has been found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity. Any of these conditions would result in the individual being declared a prohibited person, meaning they cannot possess firearms. Importantly, this status is a legal determination that requires a judicial process.

Involuntary Commitment

Individuals can also be involuntarily committed to a mental institution by a lawful authority who has determined they meet the criteria mentioned above. However, involuntary commitment does not apply if the individual checks themselves in voluntarily or is under observation voluntarily.

These stringent legal protections ensure that individuals are not unjustly stripped of their Second Amendment rights without a fair hearing. This due process requirement aligns with the constitutional principles of equal protection (Fourteenth Amendment) and due process (Fifth Amendment).

Real-World Examples and Their Implications

Consider the case of a bipolar ex-wife who threatened to purchase a gun and kill her spouse and children. Despite her mental health status, she faces zero legal barriers to gun ownership because her condition has not been formally adjudicated or involuntarily committed to a mental institution. Privacy laws further mask her medical history, preventing it from being used as evidence in court to restrict her gun ownership.

Similarly, a relative with PTSD who has been multiple times hospitalized for their condition can still legally own firearms. This highlights the challenges in balancing individual rights and public safety, particularly in the context of mental health and privacy.

Conclusion

The current state of mental health privacy laws and gun control in the United States presents a complex interplay between individual rights, public safety, and constitutional protections. While privacy is a fundamental right, it must be balanced with the need to protect public safety. The legal framework surrounding the declaration of a "prohibited person" ensures that individuals are not deprived of their rights without due process, aligning with the principles of equal protection and due process.

Nevertheless, ongoing efforts are needed to refine and strengthen both privacy laws and gun control measures to address the nuances of mental health and ensure that individuals who pose a genuine risk to public safety are appropriately restricted.