Gun control

About: Gun control is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 1211 publications have been published within this topic receiving 16516 citations. The topic is also known as: firearms control & gun law.

Civil Commitment, Firearms Restriction, and the U.S. Sixth Circuit Tyler Ruling.

Abstract: Beginning with the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968, federal restrictions have been placed on the right of individuals with mental illness to possess firearms This law prohibits anyone “who has been adjudicated as a mental defective” (the terminology of the day) or “who has been

When science doesn't support beliefs.

Abstract: In this article the author discusses what happens when science does not support people's beliefs. He notes his libertarian political ideology and argues that science is the greatest instrument ever devised for understanding the world. He discusses what happens when the principles of libertarianism and science are in conflict, such as the issues of gun control and climate change.

What Federal Gun Control Can Teach Us About the DMCA's Anti-Trafficking Provisions

Abstract: This article studies the so-called "anti-trafficking provisions" of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") by drawing insight from federal gun control. Among other things, the anti-trafficking provisions criminalize the distribution of technology that circumvents the encryption schemes sometimes used to protect digital files. This prohibition even applies to the sale of circumvention technology for lawful purposes. Not suprisingly, this result has generated controversy. Consumer advocates and civil libertarians have argued that it is wrong to criminalize the sale of technology that has lawful use, particularly when that criminalization makes it difficult - if not impossible - for the public to make legal, noninfringing use of copyrighted works. Controversy exists because Congress has refused to amend the DMCA to preserve lawful consumer use of copyrighted works. The argument for this refusal is simple: Digital technology, particularly the Internet, unacceptably threatens the security of copyright. Strong measures must therefore be taken to prevent such misuse of digital technology, even if it means curtailing rights of access and use that the public is supposed to enjoy.The article questions whether the above described sacrifice of public rights is really necessary. This criticism starts with the observation that both federal gun control and the DMCA's anti-trafficking provisions respond to the misuse of technology. People misuse guns to commit crimes, and people misuse circumvention technology to commit copyright infringement. In both cases, Congress has used criminal law to keep technology away from those who might misuse it. In the case of circumvention technology, Congress has banned such technology at the expense of public of access to such technology for lawful purposes. In the case of guns, Congress has not imposed a ban precisely because it was concerned about preserving access to firearms for lawful purposes.The article uses this observation to challenge the view that public availability of circumvention technology will destroy copyright. The article studies the regulatory methods used in gun control, and adapts them to propose a general approach for controlling the misuse of circumvention technology while preserving access to such technology for lawful purposes. The article contends that this proposal will provide adequate security to copyright holders, preserve public rights of fair use and access to copyrighted works, and encourage the responsible use of digital encryption schemes.

Mental Illness and Firearms Background Checks-Combatting Violence Without Inhibiting Care.

Abstract: The history of American firearms legislation is one of tragedy and response. The Gun Control Act of 1968, prohibiting certain categories of individuals from possessing or purchasing firearms, was prompted by political violence. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, requiring background checks on prospective buyers via the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), memorialized an attempted presidential assassination. The NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, designed to strengthen the background check system, followed the mass shooting at Virginia Tech University. The latest initiatives aimed at curbing gun violence were announced by President Barack Obama on the heels of the tragic events in Newtown, Connecticut. Among the President’s 23 executive actions was a directive to “address unnecessary legal barriers” that prevent reporting “on people prohibited from gun ownership for mental health reasons.” In response, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently published a final regulation that amends the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule to enable disclosures to the federal background check system under specified circumstances. This Viewpoint analyzes the new rule, explores the nexus between mental health records and firearms background checks, and examines implications for psychiatrists. Federal law prohibits 9 categories of persons from shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving firearms or ammunition. One such category applies to individuals who (in now-antiquated terminology) have been either “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to a mental institution.” Such adjudications and commitments involve action “by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority.” While there is some judicial disagreement as to how much due process is required before the federal mental health prohibitor can be invoked, there is widespread consensus that “a mental health diagnosis does not, in itself,” trigger the prohibitor. Moreover, in most cases the treating psychiatrist is not the legal authority responsible for placing an individual in a prohibited class. This distinction between treatment and adjudication is a cornerstone of both the physician-patient relationship and the due process rights of mentally ill individuals. THE BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM The NICS was activated in 1998 to help enforce the firearms prohibitions under federal and state law by creating a mechanism to determine the eligibility of a prospective gun buyer at the point of sale. Licensed sellers are required to contact the NICS to relay identifying information about the customer. The Federal Bureau of Investigation checks the information against 3 databases to see if there is a record match and advises whether the sale may proceed. Federal agencies are required to report prohibited persons to the NICS, whereas states are incentivized via grants. The US Supreme Court has held that states may not be compelled to participate. The efficacy of the NICS is predicated on the currency and completeness of available data. In 2012,investigators examined the extent to which states had made mental health prohibiting information available to the NICS and found overall progress to be limited and uneven. Specifically, officials from half of the states studied cited privacy laws as an obstacle. The perception that HIPAA in particular created an impediment to NICS reporting formed the backdrop for the latest regulatory action.... Language: en