Nics - a.d.d.

PlayLoud · #1 01-10-2009, 07:53 PM

Hello everybody,

I have been thinking of purchasing my first firearm sometime in 2009, and I while reading up on the subject, I came across the (H.R. 2640) NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007.

After reading a lot of discussion on the matter, there are those who say that having been diagnosed with A.D.D (Attention Deficit Disorder), would place you on the prohibited list, and such a person would not be able to purchase a firearm. As somebody who was diagnosed with A.D.D. back in 1994 (and took medication until about the year 2000), I would fall under such a category.

However, others have said that one must be adjudicated as mentally defective, as defined by...

(1) A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:

Is a danger to himself or to others; or
Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.

(2) The term shall include —

A finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and
Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to articles 50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 850a, 876b.

While this definition would suggest that a person with A.D.D. would be eligible to purchase a firearm, the term "other lawful authority" is quite vague, and some have suggested that the simple diagnosis of A.D.D. through the IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) program would be enough to prohibit such a person. I don't remember if I was involved with such a program when I was diagnosed. I was a sophomore in High School, and diagnosed at UCLA on recommendations by the school shrink, I wasn't in any special ed classes (and no, I didn't ride on the short bus), but I did get to take my SATs in an un-timed manner.

It appears this bill became law in 8 Jan 2008. As a new member of this forum, I haven't been around to stay up to date on the effect of new laws. However,I tried to search for every term I could think of, but couldn't find the answer I am looking for.

I am wondering how this has worked in practice during the past year. Have people been denied their right to purchase a firearm due to some old diagnosis for something extremely minor, and irrelevant to firearm possession?

wolfhunter · #2 01-10-2009, 09:52 PM

One must be "adjudicated as mentally defective". This is different than being diagnosed. Adjudication requires a decision from a judge, jury, or medical PANEL. The NRA was insistent on this, as a diagnosis (by one doctor) could efffect thousands of active, former, or retired military who may have been diagnosed with PTSD.

Unless you stood before a judge or jury, or had your case reviewed by a State psychiatric board, you should be OK.

Hamster · #3 01-10-2009, 09:55 PM

+1 and welcome from the peach state.
Good luck finding the firearm that is perfect for you.

PlayLoud · #4 01-10-2009, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfhunter

One must be "adjudicated as mentally defective". This is different than being diagnosed. Adjudication requires a decision from a judge, jury, or medical PANEL. The NRA was insistent on this, as a diagnosis (by one doctor) could efffect thousands of active, former, or retired military who may have been diagnosed with PTSD.

Unless you stood before a judge or jury, or had your case reviewed by a State psychiatric board, you should be OK.

Thank you for your response. That is what I was hoping to hear. The way some were describing it, I was worried. Actually, I was part of a study at UCLA (ADD was still very new I believe). They paid me (and my family) $50 to come in for the day, and administer tests. So, I guess there was probably more than one doctor involved. I hope that doesn't make a difference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hamster

+1 and welcome from the peach state.
Good luck finding the firearm that is perfect for you.

Thank you. I am currently looking at the Kimber Custom TLE/II for home defense. I am hoping to pick one up this year, before the laws here in the liberal state of California change and add more required safety features.

wolfhunter · #5 01-10-2009, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PlayLoud

Thank you for your response. That is what I was hoping to hear. The way some were describing it, I was worried. Actually, I was part of a study at UCLA (ADD was still very new I believe). They paid me (and my family) $50 to come in for the day, and administer tests. So, I guess there was probably more than one doctor involved. I hope that doesn't make a difference.

It shouldn't

Thank you. I am currently looking at the Kimber Custom TLE/II for home defense. I am hoping to pick one up this year, before the laws here in the liberal state of California change and add more required safety features.

If they add more safety requirements, the triggers will be permanently immobilized, or something similar.

PlayLoud · #6 01-10-2009, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfhunter

If they add more safety requirements, the triggers will be permanently immobilized, or something similar.

Yeah, we have another law coming at the start of next year. It isn't a "safety" device, but I am sure it will add to the cost of the firearm.

(7) Commencing January 1, 2010, for all semiautomatic pistols that are not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section 12131, it is not designed and equipped with a microscopic array of characters that identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol, etched or otherwise imprinted in two or more places on the interior surface or internal working parts of the pistol, and that are transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when the firearm is fired, provided that the Department of Justice certifies that the technology used to create the imprint is available to more than one manufacturer unencumbered by any patent restrictions. The Attorney General may also approve a method of equal or greater reliability and effectiveness in identifying the specific serial number of a firearm from spent cartridge casings discharged by that firearm than that which is set forth in this paragraph, to be thereafter required as otherwise set forth by this paragraph where the Attorney General certifies that this new method is also unencumbered by any patent restrictions. Approval by the Attorney General shall include notice of that fact via regulations adopted by the Attorney General for purposes of implementing that method for purposes of this paragraph. The microscopic array of characters required by this section shall not be considered the name of the maker, model, manufacturer's number, or other mark of identification, including any distinguishing number or mark assigned by the Department of Justice, within the meaning of Sections 12090 and 12094.

I'm not good at legaleze, but it looks like this may only apply to new models. Models already on the approved list would be fine, though I don't know if they could be renewed on the approved list once their approved period is up.

wolfhunter · #7 01-10-2009, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PlayLoud

Yeah, we have another law coming at the start of next year. It isn't a "safety" device, but I am sure it will add to the cost of the firearm.

(7) Commencing January 1, 2010, for all semiautomatic pistols that are not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section 12131, it is not designed and equipped with a microscopic array of characters that identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol, etched or otherwise imprinted in two or more places on the interior surface or internal working parts of the pistol, and that are transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when the firearm is fired, provided that the Department of Justice certifies that the technology used to create the imprint is available to more than one manufacturer unencumbered by any patent restrictions. The Attorney General may also approve a method of equal or greater reliability and effectiveness in identifying the specific serial number of a firearm from spent cartridge casings discharged by that firearm than that which is set forth in this paragraph, to be thereafter required as otherwise set forth by this paragraph where the Attorney General certifies that this new method is also unencumbered by any patent restrictions. Approval by the Attorney General shall include notice of that fact via regulations adopted by the Attorney General for purposes of implementing that method for purposes of this paragraph. The microscopic array of characters required by this section shall not be considered the name of the maker, model, manufacturer's number, or other mark of identification, including any distinguishing number or mark assigned by the Department of Justice, within the meaning of Sections 12090 and 12094.

I'm not good at legaleze, but it looks like this may only apply to new models. Models already on the approved list would be fine, though I don't know if they could be renewed on the approved list once their approved period is up.

I don't know if the referenced roster is the current models approved for sale, or the list of registered guns.
Also, the technology required for this is only available from one company, and they have it patented.

toreskha · #8 01-10-2009, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PlayLoud

...it is not designed and equipped with a microscopic array of characters that identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol, etched or otherwise imprinted in two or more places on the interior surface or internal working parts of the pistol, and that are transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when the firearm is fired, provided that the Department of Justice certifies that the technology used to create the imprint is available to more than one manufacturer unencumbered by any patent restrictions.

That seems extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible from a technical standpoint. It's likely that such a system would stamp lots of false serial numbers through wear and tear - and then you can just change the firing pin, anyway.

wolfhunter · #9 01-10-2009, 11:56 PM

Toreskha,
He's refering to Kalifornia's micro-stamping law. Only one company has the technology, 3 different gun manufacturers testified that the bill would require massive re-tooling at the factories, and the mechanism can be negated in minutes with a fingernail file, or simply replacing the firing pin, but the legislators passed the bill anyway.