Reason Blasts New York Times for False Reporting on Manhattan Shooter’s Mental Health Commitment

In a lot of cases, saying someone is committed is a good thing. It means they’re focused on a task, or maybe it means their in a romantic relationship with someone they love. Those are good things, for the most part.

Then there’s being committed against your will. That’s far less good.

And sometimes, people with mental health struggles need that. They should get the treatment they require, though often it’s an on-again, off-again kind of thing.

But not everyone who is held for evaluation gets committed.

The New York Times apparently missed that, and Jacob Sullum over at Reason decided to set them straight after they made a thing about how the Manhattan shooter was able to get a gun despite having been “committed.”

“Before Park Ave. Shooting,” says the headline over a New York Times story published this week, “Nevada Police Had Gunman Committed.” If so, that means [the killer], who killed four people before committing suicide at a Manhattan office building on July 28, was disqualified from possessing firearms under both federal and Nevada law. Yet last week, the Times reported that [the killer] “obtained a firearm legally in his home state of Nevada even though he had a documented history of mental health problems.” The headline: “Gunman’s Mental Health History Did Not Prohibit Gun Purchase.”

What gives? In 2022 and again in 2024, [he] was subject to a “mental health crisis hold,” which Nevada law authorizes when police, based on “personal observation,” have “probable cause to believe” that someone, “as a result of mental illness,” poses “a substantial likelihood of serious harm” to himself or others. That is not the same as being “committed” to a “mental health institution” under court order, which triggers the federal and state bans on gun possession.

Bingo.

Someone having a rough time might well get a 72-hour hold because someone is concerned they’re a threat to themselves or others, but it doesn’t mean someone has such severe problems that they should be prohibited from owning a firearm. What it actually is, when you think about it, is a way for a layman to compel someone who may be a threat to be evaluated by someone who actually knows what to look for.

The officers might be right or they might be wrong.

They might even be right for that instance, only for the hold to be long enough to help the crisis pass, so the person can go back to their life without being any kind of threat to anyone, even if they still need treatment.

And here’s why that distinction actually matters:

That distinction is relevant to the gun control debate provoked by [his] horrifying crime. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul blamed Nevada’s “weak gun laws” for the shooting. More specifically, the Times highlighted the fact that [the killer] could have obtained the rifle he used in the attack “without additional background checks” because he “had a permit to carry a concealed weapon” issued by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department in May 2022. But the Times acknowledged that [he] had “no criminal history,” and now it seems clear that he did not have a disqualifying psychiatric record either, which means he would have passed a background check.

In other words, the background check issue is a red herring, which is usually true when politicians or journalists suggest that safeguard could have prevented a mass shooting. After the 2015 mass shooting that killed 14 people in San Bernardino, California, for example, President Barack Obama recommended “common-sense gun safety laws,” including “stronger background checks,” to prevent such crimes. But it turned out that the killers had obtained the rifles they used in that attack from a neighbor who bought them legally. Since the neighbor was allowed to buy guns, “stronger background checks” would not have made a difference.

Precisely.

A 72-hour hold can be sought by all kinds of people, but they’re often called for by people who are not mental health professionals. They’re not a determination of whether someone’s mental health is less than ideal or not, even. They’re a way to make sure someone is evaluated before they hurt someone, even themselves.

And they’re not disqualifying for gun purchases because they’re not a finding of whether someone is “mentally defective” or not, as the law terms it.

The Manhattan killer would have passed any NICS check. The fact that he didn’t have to go through one is irrelevant. He could have, so a background check would have accomplished nothing with regard to stopping this shooting.

But the use of the word “committed” in the context it was used suggests that the killer was prohibited, that a background check requirement might have prevented him from buying a gun. That’s simply not true based on the facts on the ground, as we understand them, and this is a case where we’re not being pedantic. It’s a difference that actually matters.

Did the New York Times not realize there was an appreciable difference? It’s possible, because it’s not like reporters are experts on anything they cover most of the time.

However, they’re also notoriously anti-gun and may well have known what they were saying and decided to run with it, hoping they wouldn’t get called out for it.

Unfortunately for them, they did.

Editor’s Note: The mainstream media continues to deflect, gaslight, spin, and lie about gun owners, gun laws, and the Second Amendment.

Help us continue to expose their anti-gun bias by reading news you can trust. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.