Blake Shuart: Gun control debates trace back to Hinckley

When John Hinckley Jr. first saw the film “Taxi Driver” in 1976, he began developing an unhealthy obsession with a young and beautiful actress named Jodie Foster. Deranged and unmonitored clinically, Hinckley trailed Foster around the country for the next several years, trying everything to gain her favor. By 1980, it was clear to Hinckley that Foster was not interested. In his sick and tortured mind, his only remaining option was to try to gain national attention by assassinating a president.

On the afternoon of March 30, 1981, armed with a Saturday-night special he had purchased in a Dallas pawn shop, Hinckley trailed President Reagan to the Washington Hilton Hotel. Hinckley was able to get within 15 feet of Reagan and fired six shots at the president. The final shot ricocheted off the president’s limousine and struck Reagan on the left side, grazing a rib before becoming lodged in his lung, causing it to partially collapse. Reagan had emergency surgery and recovered fully. Three other men were shot, including White House press secretary James Brady, who was seriously wounded.

Fast forward to 2017. Hinckley has been released from treatment to live with his elderly mother in Virginia, and thanks to President Trump’s recent remarks linking gun violence exclusively to mental health issues, he is perhaps more relevant than ever.

The president has been clear and unambiguous in his messaging – and his predictable decision to pivot away from gun control – when discussing the horrific tragedies in Las Vegas and Sutherland Springs, Texas. In the immediate aftermath of the Las Vegas rampage, Trump called the shooter a “sick, demented man” whose “wires are screwed up.” He also characterized the mass shooting at a Texas church as “a mental health problem at the highest level” – not a “guns situation.”

The president should carefully consider Hinckley’s story – particularly its aftermath – before offering any further opinions on the cause of these deadly shootings.

While we do not yet know the full psychiatric profiles of either shooter, we can safely assume for the sake of argument that both men were deeply troubled. So, too, was Hinckley. He was so disturbed, in fact, that a jury found him not guilty by reason of insanity. But there are two other crucial components to Hinckley’s story.

First, Hinckley’s acquittal sparked national outrage, leading to a massive overhaul of the insanity defense in the decades that followed. While it is popular on television shows, the defense is rarely used in real life, and even more rarely is it successful. Post Hinckley, the burden of proof was shifted from the prosecution to the defense in many courts, and other jurisdictions have all but eliminated the defense entirely. As public perception changed, politicians reacted, and the legal standards tightened.

So, while the president is busy calling these future criminal defendants insane, he may also be tainting jury pools and complicating the trials of men who would love to use the Donald Trump armchair insanity defense if only given the chance.

Second, Reagan – a beloved conservative and loyal friend of the NRA as president – eventually recognized that unchecked mental illness and lax gun laws can coexist as joint contributors to mass gun violence. Reagan knew Hinckley’s history of mental illness, and used it as a basis for successfully lobbying in favor of the Brady Act when his presidency was over.

When Trump cites mental health issues as the exclusive cause of recent mass shootings, he shows us that he has a short memory when it comes to American history. It would serve him well to brush up on Reagan and Hinckley before he opines further on these weighty, ultra-sensitive, high-stakes issues. It’s well worth his time.

This story was originally published November 20, 2017 at 4:55 AM with the headline "Blake Shuart: Gun control debates trace back to Hinckley."