The mentally ill and due process

There’s no denying the pattern – many of the young men who’ve gone on shooting rampages in America in recent years showed symptoms of mental illness that did not go unnoticed.

On her first day at school at Pima Community College in Tucson, Ariz., student Lynda Sorensen emailed friends about Jared Loughner, who would subsequently go on a 2011 shooting rampage, killing six and wounding U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords: “We do have one student in the class who was disruptive today. … He scares me a bit. … I talked to the teacher afterward. Hopefully he will be out of class very soon, and not come back with an automatic weapon.”

Surely lawmakers seeking to make it harder for such characters to acquire firearms are on the side of the angels. The question is how to draw that line without creating a pretext to strip constitutional rights from those who present no danger.

State Sen. Ben Kieckhefer, R-Reno, said Thursday that Nevada laws aren’t preventing mentally ill people from buying guns because such proscriptions take effect only after a court commits such a person to involuntary psychiatric custody.

Sen. Kieckhefer said he’ll introduce legislation to expand the definition and thus the number of people listed as “mentally ill” in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

Where current Nevada law requires mentally ill individuals to be listed in the database if they’re judged legally insane or involuntarily committed, Sen. Kieckhefer said he wants people listed as soon as there’s a legal petition to commit them.

“These are people who a psychiatrist has diagnosed with a mental illness and who are believed to be a danger to themselves or others,” Sen. Kieckhefer says. “In those instances, I think those people should be restricted from buying a gun.”

But “This solution … is fraught with problems,” warns former state Sen. Sheila Leslie, D-Reno, a mental health advocate.

The main problem? Courts are called on to certify mental illness precisely so a person facing an impairment of their rights has the benefit of due process.

Would some interim, shorter-term restriction based on one doctor’s finding – until the petition for commitment can be heard – be a better idea?

Maybe. We might find out. Bet on a court challenge if such a bill passes the Legislature.