Charleston shooting

Why John Houser's Psychiatric Record Did Not Block His Gun Purchase

Under current law, the Louisiana theater shooter was properly cleared.


Lafayette Police Department

In a story about the "problems" that "plague" the system of background checks for gun buyers, The New York Times suggests that John Houser, who murdered two people at a Louisiana movie theater last week with a handgun he bought at an Alabama pawnshop last year, should not have been approved to complete that purchase:

His family called him unstable and violent, so John R. Houser was ordered by a judge to be taken against his will to a mental hospital in 2008. Despite that sign that Mr. Houser was mentally troubled, he passed a background check and was able to legally purchase the gun…

On Sunday, Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana argued that if Mr. Houser had been involuntarily committed in his state, he could not have passed a background check. That is because of a law the governor signed last year, requiring the state's courts to report such rulings to the federal database. Mr. Jindal urged other states to strengthen their laws and make sure such information is reported to the federal government.

"Absolutely, in this instance, this man never should have been able to buy a gun," he said on the CBS program "Face the Nation."

Not until the 18th paragraph does the Times mention that Houser, who killed himself as police arrived at the scene of his attack, was not in fact legally disqualified from owning a gun because he was committed to a Georgia mental hospital for evaluation, not for treatment. Federal law bans gun ownership by anyone who "has been committed to any mental institution," and the federal regulation defining that phrase says "the term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation." So the problem in this case was not, as the Times implies, a failure to share relevant information with the FBI (which runs the background checks) or Georgia's idiosyncratic definition of commitment. The problem, if there was one, was that Houser's gun purchase was legal.

Gun controllers will predictably respond that the criteria for stripping people of their Second Amendment rights should be expanded, but that course would only exacerbate the overbreadth of the current disqualifications. If Congress changes the law so that anyone compelled to undergo a psychiatric evaluation, regardless of the outcome, can never legally buy a gun, the change will affect many nonviolent people—people like Brandon Raub, who was forcibly evaluated in Virginia based on the political opinions he expressed. Even people committed for observation because relatives mistakenly believe they are suicidal would permanently lose the right to own a gun. Such proposals for preventing troubled individuals from obtaining firearms are misbegotten because they require a dragnet that will ensnare many harmless people without having a significant impact on gun violence.

There is a similar problem with the drug-related criteria for blocking a gun purchase. As the Times notes, the FBI says Dylann Roof, charged with murdering nine people at the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina, last month, should not have been allowed to buy the gun he used in that attack because he admitted after being caught with a Schedule III narcotic that he did not have a prescription for it. That admission, according to the FBI, proved Roof was "an unlawful user" of a controlled substance, and he would have failed his background check if the agent who conducted it had contacted the correct local law enforcement agency and learned the details of his drug arrest. Maybe, but that hardly validates the wisdom or fairness of denying millions of harmless people the right to armed self-defense based on their taste in psychoactive substances.

NEXT: The Government's Latest Attempt to Stop Hackers Will Only Make Cybersecurity Worse

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. OT: /Trump Voice on

    The lack of Mourning Lynx is ‘uuuuuuuuuuge.

    /Trump Voice off

    1. You’re early. The cat arrives around 9am.

  2. Also, clearly, infringing on your gun rights would make us all safer from the loonies. So we should do it. For teh childrunz.

    It’s just common sense. No one NEEDS an automatic death ray clip with 97 round bayonet foregrips!1!1!1!1!!

  3. Why John Houser’s Psychiatric Record Did Not Block His Gun Purchase

    Because Democrats didn’t wish hard enough.

  4. How about just denying firearms to people with strange eyes?

    1. Why do you hate Brad Dorif and Steve Bushemi?

      1. I was thinking more along these lines.

  5. The desire to own any firearm is suggestive, on its face, of a paranoid disorder and should lead to an individual not being able to legally buy one.

    There, problem solved. Also, sarcasm.


    I’ve linked this before, but it illustrates precisely why the whole intersection of mentally ill and guns as needing some sort of “solution” is a non-starter to even argue about. It’s bad enough to have the statistical fourth-standard-deviation-tail wag the bell-curve-dog, but it’s unconscionable to have an OUTLIER wag the dog, and that’s what mass shootings by the mentally ill (as broadly, and amorphously defined) is – an outlier of people using an outlier of gun ownership to do terrible and reprehensible things. But as bad as those things are, the population being discussed does not require addressing at all. The only thing worse than the reality than a couple of handfuls of people (out of several hundreds of millions) going on rampages is trying to “do something about it” by mailing fists wildly in every direction regardless of which chins that will be connected with (that is, about every “solution” offered via the State).

  7. WTF Reason? Yet another article pointing out how our gun background checks don’t really work.

    So what’s to be taken from this article? My first impression on reading it is that it says need better more invasive background check processes.

    How the hell is that a considered libertarian position?? Again WTF Reason?

    1. Did you even read the article?

      1. He got distracted by the WWF ad.

  8. The Times article, an MSNBC article, and a similar WashPo article had me very near commenting on their respective sites about the very poor “reporting” over this issue. Between MSNBC conflating Houser’s denial of a concealed carry permit (for a domestic violence ACCUSATION, according with state law) as a NICS denial, to WashPo’s inability to grasp the difference between an involuntary commitment and observation, the gun-grabbers are getting pretty “set-aside-my-brain” desperate.

    Anyone who owns firearms and has endured a nasty breakup knows exactly how the “mental health” and “domestic violence” stuff is going to be abused. Spiteful people look for spiteful things to j’accuse when the time comes. And it seems that all too often there is a receptive ear within the criminal justice industrial complex willing to oblige the behavior. In this case, Houser turned out to be, in the end, perhaps driven by his issues, violent. But the chaff-from-wheat problem is certainly exacerbated by far too many false or overblown retaliatory accusations clogging up the system now. (See also: false rape allegations)

  9. Conservatives and progressives agree in principle that certain people with diagnosable mental disorders should face some undefined restrictions on their right to possess firearms. Progressives don’t like guns, so they’re willing to exploit prejudice against a traditionally disadvantaged group and conservatives don’t like disorder, so they’re willing to infringe on the right to self-defense.

    There isn’t really a constituency to defend people who may seek out or receive psychiatric treatment, or to speak up for their right to armed self-defense. It’s unfortunate that the mainstream ideologies have such a big blind spot.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.