RCMP CFP Evaluation – Part 6.4

~~~

Recommendation 3 of 7 for this section of the “evaluation”.  Read along at:

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pd-dp/eval/index-eng.htm

~~~

– 42 –

Recommendation 8:

That the CFP examine the feasibility of incorporating other agency databanks and applicant mental health risk factors into the decision making process. Accordingly, the privacy issues surrounding mental health needs to be addressed further. As an innovative practice, the province of Québec has ‘health providers’ reporting clients with mental health concerns. Their progress should be reviewed to determine applicability and public safety impacts in other provinces.

Great – yet even more State intrusion on our privacy. Does anyone remember the HRDC’s “Longitudinal Files” scandal that was touted by Lieberal Cabinet Minister Jane Stewart? This is 10 times worse – but since it only affects those evil gun owners, it’s OK. It’s for “public safety” after all!

“Innovative practice” my ass! They’ve used the coercive power of the State to force various public servants to spy on us, and snitch on our behaviour if they consider it “suspicious”…

One problem identified in this area is with respect to an inconsistent use of Uniform Crime Reporting codes (UCR2) when police respond to calls that involve an individual with mental health issues. Often police respond to these incidents, which are more commonly coded as “Assistance to the General Public”, a UCR2 code that will not trigger the necessary Firearms Interest Police or FIP flag, needed to raise the attention of the provincial CFO. In the case of a properly coded “Mental Health” instances, if the subject is a firearms license holder, their license will be temporarily suspended so the Firearm Officer can do the appropriate follow-up with the licensee(1). If there are risk concerns, the licensee can be requested to provide documentation from the licensees’ physician to confirm the subject is not of risk to himself or others, with due respect to privacy rights(2). One possible solution is to amend the RCMP policy with respect to reporting mental health incidents to the CFO, to encourage officers to make FIP entries using the proper UCR code.[32]

[32] RCMP Operations Manual 19.7. Mentally Ill Persons/Prisoners “1. If a person, including a prisoner in RCMP custody, exhibits symptoms of a mental disorder and is endangering him/herself or others, consider immediately escorting them to a medically trained professional… 2. A mentally disturbed person will be incarcerated separately from other prisoners.” There is no further reference to pursuing firearms related checks or making a FIP entry. There is also no apparent referencing to FIP in the Operations Manual.

(1) To the best of my knowledge, there is no mechanism under the law, either the Firearms Act or the Criminal Code, to “suspend” a license. There is either “revoke/refuse” or “allow”. I don’t know how they would go about doing this – other than by making stuff up as they go along…

(2) This is known as “reverse onus” – otherwise called “guilty until you prove yourself innocent”…

I don’t think that anybody is against keeping dangerous people from having guns, but is this really the way to go?

From page 23:

Continuous eligibility checks identified over 97,000 potential public safety issues (Firearms Interest to Police);

FIP hits led to 466 Licence Refusals and 1701 Licence Revocations;

From my analysis in a previous post:

466/97,000 = 0.5% of licensees who come under FIP scrutiny have their licenses revoked

1701/97,000 = 1.8% of license applications that come under FIP scrutiny are refused

97,000/1.8M = 5% of legitimate gun owners come under FIP scrutiny

466/1.8M = 0.03% of legitimate gun owners who come under FIP scrutiny have their licenses revoked

1701/1.8M = 0.09% of legitimate gun owners who come under FIP scrutiny have their license applications refused

When you calculate this against some 4 million FIP entries, you get to see just how minuscule the numbers are for refusals and revocations, overall…

When you realize that “mental health” (which would include “potential risk to self or others”) is at most 11% of revocations/refusals, it becomes apparent that all this concern over lawful gun owners going squirrelly with their guns, while somewhat on the noble side, it is misplaced.

• Management Supports Recommendation (Yes or No)

Management supports the recommendation.

• Current Status

There is currently no formal process in place to examine the feasibility of incorporating other agency databanks and applicant mental health risk factors into the decision making process.

As addressed in the “Planned Action” of recommendation #17 of this MAP: The DG of the CFP “will maintain existing relationships and explore partnerships with the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Association of Police Boards.”(3)

(3) Three of the most anti-gun organizations in Canada, making decisions on our behalf, behind closed doors.

• Responsible

LRTSD (Licensing, Registration and Technical Services Directorate)

• Planned Action

o In consultation with legal, examine the feasibility of incorporating other agency databanks and applicant mental health risk factors into the decision making process.

Diary Date: March 31, 2010

o Review Québec legislation and processes to determine applicability and public safety impacts in other provinces.

Diary Date: March 31, 2010

o In addition to this, the CFP will seek an expert opinion from the Canadian Medical Association and research any other national / provincial organizations that could be of value.

Diary Date: March 31, 2010

All of these reviews seem to have been completed by March 31st. I wonder what they concluded…




<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: