Hate Crimes, Guns, and Record Keeping

Good Data Stewardship Can Protect Lives

This past Saturday, in Jacksonville, Florida, a 21-year-old man shot and killed three Black individuals. Evidence from the scene includes writings that showcased anti-Black sentiments, a firearm marked with swastikas, and reports of racial slurs used during the incident. Authorities are currently investigating the event as a racially motivated hate crime. While the justice system will make the official determination on that motivation, the evidence powerfully indicates racial animus.

This case draws attention not just to racist shooters and shootings, but also to the systems that enable them. Shootings can’t happen without guns. So, the question arises: how did the shooter obtain his weapons, and was he legally entitled to them?

The Baker Act

The Baker Act, formally known as the Florida Mental Health Act of 1971, is a Florida statute that allows for involuntary examination, often referred to as “emergency” or “temporary detention” of an individual. Judges, law enforcement officials, physicians, and mental health professionals can initiate this procedure.

The Baker Act permits individuals to be involuntarily committed and examined if they are believed to have a mental illness and either pose a potential danger to themselves or others. If someone meets the criteria for involuntary examination, they can be held in a designated facility for up to 72 hours. During this time, they undergo evaluation, and decisions about subsequent treatment are made. Typically, those involuntarily committed under the Baker Act would be restricted from purchasing firearms.

The Jacksonville shooter was held under the Baker Act in 2017, yet he bought a handgun in April and an AR-15-style rifle in June of this year. Given the restrictions of the Baker Act, it’s puzzling how he was able to make these purchases, raising questions about whether his Baker Act detention was considered a full commitment or if it was properly recorded. If it’s the latter, better data stewardship might have prevented this tragedy.

We don’t yet know whether a data failure is what allowed the Jacksonville shooter to obtain firearms. However, we know of other instances where this has happened.

Federal Gun Control: The Role of Data Failures

Let’s move beyond Florida’s laws and examine federal regulations. The federal Gun Control Act sets conditions under which individuals cannot own guns or ammunition. These include people convicted in any court of a crime that could lead to imprisonment for over a year, those with misdemeanor convictions related to domestic violence, and individuals adjudicated as mentally ill or involuntarily committed. Furthermore, if someone has a protective or restraining order, typically in cases of harassment or threats to an intimate partner or child, they’re also prohibited.

Here are some examples of types of data failures that have enabled shootings.

Incomplete NICS Reporting. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) determines gun purchase eligibility. In the 2017 Sutherland Springs church shooting in Texas, the shooter had a domestic violence conviction from the Air Force. This should have prevented his gun purchase. However, because the Air Force failed to report this conviction to NICS, the shooter successfully purchased firearms.

Mental Health Reporting Specificity. Federal law bars gun sales to those officially deemed mentally ill. But the effectiveness of this law hinges on states submitting these specific mental health records to NICS. The 2007 Virginia Tech shooting illustrates this gap. While the shooter was officially declared mentally ill, Virginia’s reporting protocols at that time failed to capture and relay this specific detail, allowing him to pass background checks.

Delayed Background Checks. A NICS background check taking more than three days without a clear answer lets the sale continue. The 2015 church shooting in Charleston, South Carolina happened this way. The shooter had admitted to illegal drug possession in a pending criminal case, which disqualified him from possessing a gun. However, due to administrative errors in the background check processes, the three-day hold timed out without a definitive answer. The gun dealer opted to use his discretion to complete the sale.

Conclusion

Shootings, including hate crime shootings, can’t happen without guns. These incidents are in part about the individual pulling the trigger and in part about the systems that arm them. Lapses in data flow that allow potential threats to acquire firearms emphasize the dire need for more meticulous record-keeping and oversight. Ensuring that our systems function seamlessly is not just a bureaucratic necessity, but a moral imperative. Robust data stewardship can prevent hate crimes and save lives.

Your neighbor,

Chad