The Legal Standard for Deprivation of a Person's Firearm Rights is Mental Incomptence, not Mental Illness

At the Seattle Times, staff writer Sarah Freishtat incorrectly and inappropriately uses the phrases "mental illness" and "mental health" in her article about records reported to the FBI regarding people whose firearm rights have been revoked by courts of law, due to “mental incompetence” or being a “mental defective”. 

The phrase "mental illness" does not even appear in any relevant portion of Washington State statute Chapter RCW 9.41 – Firearms Laws. The term used on RCW Chapter 9.41 is "mentally incompetent", as is found in RCW 9.41.098 - Forfeiture of Firearms. In RCW 9.41.040 the phrase used is "involuntarily committed for mental health treatment" which requires a court order of "mental incompetence", as quotes from those statutes prove. Similarly the relevant federal statute uses the phrase “mental defective” and “committed to any mental institution” (see 18 USC § 922(d), 18 USC § 922(g), and 18 USC § 922(s)), as the basis for denying a person the right to purchase or possess a firearm. Mental illness by itself is not and never has been a determining threshold for denial of a person’s firearm rights. 

The fact is that pursuant to Washington State statutory law and federal statutory law, the standard for revocation of firearm rights is "mental incompetence" not "mental illness". In fact many people with a variety of mental illnesses codified in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Illnesses (the DSM) are competent to possess firearms, are legally able to possess concealed pistol licenses, and they do so under state and federal statutory law. 

More importantly, “mental health records” are not what is reported to the FBI for inclusion in its NICS National Instant Firearms Purchase Criminal Background Check System. The FBI receives – court records – that include court orders regarding involuntary commitment, court orders finding mental incompetence, and court orders issued after findings of not guilty by reason of insanity. The law exists in this form in part, as even the article by Freishtat points out, because “due process of law” is constitutionally required, as the federal fifth amendment states, a person may not, “be deprived of life, liberty, or property …”, where revocation of someone’s firearm rights constitutes a deprivation of an aspect of that person's liberty. For people who would rather know the law than read about it misrepresented in amateurish writing by mass media reporters, there are links below to the complete relevant statutes. 

Washington State Firearms Laws
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41&full=true 

Federal Firearms Statute
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922