When Congress passed the 1968 Gun Control Act, it was one of the first attempts by the federal government to address who was too dangerous to buy a firearm. In the 50 years since, our understanding of mental illness has become more nuanced, while federal regulations largely have not.The bill, which still today forms the bedrock of federal gun regulation, disqualifies a person who “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution,” from purchasing a gun.Paul Appelbaum, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, says this qualification is too simplistic.“Either you were committed or you weren’t committed,” Appelbaum said. “[The law] just doesn’t necessarily have a lot to do with whether you’re safe to have a gun or not.”Research shows that people with a mental illness are widely not violent. In fact, just3 to 5 percent of crimes are committed by someone with a mental illness.Alcohol and substance abuse are more closely associated with a higher risk of violence than mental illness is.But today, as in 1968, conversations about gun control often include mention of mental illness.“There are lots of people who are under acute stress, behaving erratically, making threats, using substances, whether alcohol or illegal substances, for whom we are able to say, you know, it’s a really bad idea for this person to have a gun right now,” Appelbaum said. “But most of those people are not mentally ill.”In the 1960s, the public and some of the medical community believed people with mental illnesses were dangerous, said Jeff Swanson, a professor in the department of psychiatry at Duke University School of Medicine.“At that time, commitment was a little easier and at a lower threshold based on a psychiatrist believing that someone really needed treatment and was not capable of making that decision on their own,” Swanson said.
‘Red flag’ laws
Though people committed for mental health treatment need not be violent, the 1968 law treated commitment as a referendum on fitness to buy a firearm.Today, if a person is exhibiting signs they could harm themselves or others, a family member or law enforcement official can petition a judge to mandate treatment. That person’s firearms aren’t necessarily seized, but if the person is involuntarily committed, they are barred by law from purchasing guns.Marcia Morey saw many commitment hearings during her 18 years as a district court judge in North Carolina. But she also heard many other cases, involving domestic violence or homicide.“I can’t tell you the number of times I sat on the bench and heard testimony from a family member who said, ‘We saw the warning signs. He had access to a gun.’ And yes, there was a shooting. There was a murder,” Morey said.
