Curious about Mental Illness Denials


PDA






scrood?
February 9, 2011, 08:36 PM
Is there anyone here who has been denied the right to purchase, or the right to Carry concealed due to mental health reasons? Ive done quite a bit of research but would like to hear if anyone ever gets denied for this, from my understanding it pretty rare.

If you enjoyed reading about "Curious about Mental Illness Denials" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Frozen North
February 9, 2011, 08:51 PM
My first ex wife was judged mentally incompetent in a court of law after a string of bizarre self destructive acts. She was appointed a guardian at litem by the courts and is not allowed to make decisions for herself. I guess you could say she is legally a 16 year old... I am unsure if she is allowed to drive.. she got her license pulled because of her behavior, I don't know if she can ever get it back.

She was judged mentally incompetent and is barred from ever owning a firearm of any kind.

Birdmang
February 9, 2011, 08:53 PM
Bizarre you mean? I thought of acts in a market like stealing. Anyways...in IL if you were inpatient in a mental hospital you need to wait 5 years to get a FOID card, which then enables you to buy a gun.

blakdawg
February 9, 2011, 08:58 PM
According to the CA Attorney General's office, the average denial rate for firearm purchases between 1982 and 2008 was 1%.

In 2008, there were 4503 denials - 549 of them, or 12%, were for mental health reasons.

See http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/denialschart2008.pdf for a pretty pie chart.

LKB3rd
February 9, 2011, 08:59 PM
In CT and other states I believe, you are disqualified if a judge ordered you to undergo treatment. He may even have to declare you "mentally defective" (whatever that means), but I am not sure on that part.

scrood?
February 9, 2011, 09:09 PM
Ive read some stats taht a high % of the denials are from CA. There are various states the have denied CCW/CHP for mental health, but these same people can buy firearms.

CA is the only state that seems to have the mental health stuff well defined.

NukemJim
February 9, 2011, 09:12 PM
In Illinois ANY admission to a inpatient psych unit results in revocation of the FOID card for 5 years. Without a FOID card firearm/ammo cannot be possesed or purchased.

NukemJim

BeerSleeper
February 9, 2011, 09:12 PM
You're only denied on a mental health basis if there's a record of your mental health issue. That's why I choose to go undiagnosed. They've invented so many mental illnesses, any old average joe these days has at least two of them.

scrood?
February 9, 2011, 09:24 PM
Its good to hear at least in some states, there is a time limit of the prohibitor.

What I am looking for is people taken in by cops for temp observation then released to OP treatment.

I find this case interesting because in this case the cops can bypass due process, in an attempt to detain someone who is "allegedly" dangerous or mentally ill. If found to not be a danger, the person is released or sent to counseling. And yet this process, without due process, can strip of your rights in some cases, such as CA. Though federally this process cannot take your rights away.

essayons21
February 10, 2011, 02:09 PM
After the Va Tech shooting, even though Virginia was one of the only states that reported mentally ill to NICS, the mental health reporting really tightened up.

A common situation was to find females that were hospitalized for anorexia or bulemia in their teens were being denied purchases. At the time there wasn't really any way to appeal. Now there is, but it is a long and arduous process.

JohnBT
February 10, 2011, 03:43 PM
Virginia has never reported the "mentally ill" to NICS. No state reports people based on their psychiatric diagnosis.

The information reported is about individuals who have been adjudicated or committed for treatment. It's about court-related decisions, not mental health.

John

Bartholomew Roberts
February 12, 2011, 03:12 AM
There are generally two processes involving an being involuntarily detained - a temporary/emergency detention and actually being involuntarily committed to a mental institution. Under previous Supreme Court rulings, you must have an adversarial hearing for the latter. The former does not require an adversarial hearing but must be a limited (temporary) detention.

When looking at the issue of whether you are disqualified under 922(g), courts have taken two different approaches. The First Circuit has said that because Congress also included the words "adjudicated mentally ill" they clearly intended to reach a broader group than just those who were committed via adversarial hearing. They further determined that it didn't matter that the state didn't intend to deprive someone of their firearms rights, it was what Congress said that mattered. This view is shared by ONE New York District Court, the Attorney General of Delaware and has been cited approvingly by the Sixth Circuit (even though the case in question was a temporary detention with adversarial hearing).

The Fifth and Eighth Circuit on the other hand take this approach: [t]here is nothing in 18 U.S.C. 922(h) [now 922(g) ] which indicates an intent to prohibit the possession of firearms by persons who had been hospitalized for observation and examination, where they were found not to be mentally ill. The statute makes it clear that a commitment is required. United States v. Hansel, 474 F.2d 1120, 1123 (8th Cir.1973)."

Under this approach, someone must be committed under a state statute intending to effect an involuntary commitment. If the state did not intend to reach that level, then the statute is not effective to deprive you of your Second Amendment rights.

Gregaw
February 12, 2011, 12:14 PM
In Illinois ANY admission to a inpatient psych unit results in revocation of the FOID card for 5 years.

Yes, I've seen this happen a couple times. Talk about a dis-incentive to seek help for a an issue. One person a I know was under a lot of stress and coudn't sleep for several days and started acting strange due to sleep deprivation. He was taken in for help and then couldn't keep his guns for 5 years, or hunt with a gun. It's really pretty stupid.

scrood?
February 12, 2011, 03:13 PM
Ive read time and time again temp holdings for observation etc do not disqualify, but insome states, notibly CA do put a 5 year state ban on you, thogu Im sure it could be challenged.

Im more concerned with ccw laws, can the shall issues states put stricter requirements on mental heath than it has for just gun ownership?

Also, my state nebraska is shall issue, but the mental health stuff seems to be case by case, making it may issue for mental health.

gc70
February 12, 2011, 06:09 PM
Ive done quite a bit of research but would like to hear if anyone ever gets denied for this, from my understanding it pretty rare.

Federal Denials (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/denials-1), November 30, 1998 - January 31, 2011, shows 0.75% (6,202) of denials in the 'Adjudicated Mental Health' category.

Interestingly, 17.26% (1,119,337) of Active NICS Records (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/nics-index) are in the 'Adjudicated Mental Health' category.

DenaliPark
February 12, 2011, 06:21 PM
He was taken in for help and then couldn't keep his guns for 5 years, or hunt with a gun. It's really pretty stupid.

It's a hell of a lot more then "pretty stupid!" It's buearucratic, and Stalinistic...Illinois should be walled off from the rest of the USA, let them have their little totalitarian state to themselves...Just so you folks get the big picture, one out of every four of you, is clinically depressed, that is to say mentally ill!

W.E.G.
February 12, 2011, 06:59 PM
Virginia has never reported the "mentally ill" to NICS.

Not correct.

Virginia reports every involuntary commitment, and every court-mandated voluntary admission, to the VA State Police. This reported info goes into a database which IS queried by the FBI when a dealer runs an "instant check" on you in VA.

Any person in that database will be denied on an instant check.

VA has a subjective process for restoration of firearms rights after an unfavorable mental health adjudication.

Voluntary admission for mental-health care, without court involvement, does not constitute a basis in VA for a patient's name being placed in the State Police database.

JohnBT
February 13, 2011, 10:42 AM
"Not correct."

Yes, correct. The state doesn't report people when they are diagnosed mentally ill.

But thank you for emphasizing my point that Virginia does not report individuals diagnosed as mentally ill, but only reports the results of cases of "court involvement" as you put it.

John

cskny
February 13, 2011, 11:31 AM
Yes, I've seen this happen a couple times. Talk about a dis-incentive to seek help for a an issue. One person a I know was under a lot of stress and coudn't sleep for several days and started acting strange due to sleep deprivation. He was taken in for help and then couldn't keep his guns for 5 years, or hunt with a gun. It's really pretty stupid.




I'm sorry, I don't understand this post and how it's helping argue this case.

So an individual is under stress and starts acting strange enough to be taken against their will for treatment. Obviously, their behavior had gotten to the point that someone else noticed the bizarreness. Plus, it must have been pretty bad behavior because you are not even arguing that he was 'wrongfully' taken in and treated, in fact you provide an 'excuse' why he was acting that way instead.

Here's the question though, why should the rest of us care what you guys "think" he's suffering from?

Bizarre behavior is simply bizarre behavior! It doesn't make a bit of difference "why" the bizarre behavior has manifest itself, it's simply there for the rest of us to deal with! I don't "screen" the homeless guys talking to themselves to see WHY they are talking to themselves and see if it's safe to hang out.

The point is, there were MANY treatment options and avenues of help that your friend could have used BEFORE requiring 'forceable' treatment. Options that would NOT have reported and caused his firearms consequence. Options that would have helped him STOP the bizarre behavior before it got to the point of causing a dangerous situation for the rest of us.

Part of the conceptual reason that the consequence is attached is because this individual has just SHOWN that they will NOT seek that treatment and will let their condition and problems escalate to the point that it causes unsafe and bizarre behavior.

Frozen North
February 13, 2011, 11:44 AM
The post says he was taken in for help, not hauled off in a big hug myself jacket. Maybe he just had a friend drive him and checked himself in.

I did 2 weeks with no sleep due to and extreme thyroid condition. Its no fun and you will begin to scare yourself.

Gregaw
February 14, 2011, 03:55 PM
I'm sorry, I don't understand this post and how it's helping argue this case.


The point of the story is that the law creates a disincentive to seek help. There was no reason for a 5 year revokement of his 2A right because of this incident. Knowing this would make me, and I'm sure others, think twice before voluntarily seeking help for anything that could jeopardize my right to own guns.

It's the same as any of the 'zero tollerance' policies out there. It removes common sense from equation. No one wants an insanely violent person to own a gun, but stopping anyone who has checked into a 'mental health' facility from owning a gun is ridiculous, as it was in this case.

cskny
February 14, 2011, 06:40 PM
Quote:
I'm sorry, I don't understand this post and how it's helping argue this case.
The point of the story is that the law creates a disincentive to seek help. There was no reason for a 5 year revokement of his 2A right because of this incident. Knowing this would make me, and I'm sure others, think twice before voluntarily seeking help for anything that could jeopardize my right to own guns.

It's the same as any of the 'zero tollerance' policies out there. It removes common sense from equation. No one wants an insanely violent person to own a gun, but stopping anyone who has checked into a 'mental health' facility from owning a gun is ridiculous, as it was in this case.



The "zero tolerance" is for people who don't (or can't) seek help.

There were multiple types and avenues of treatment available to this person BEFORE he had to be forcibly treated because his condition had resulted in strange enough behavior. He could have simply gone to his primary care doctor to get a sleep aid if the problem was as simple as sleep depravation.

Those treatment options (which he could have sought out) could have alleviated the condition and would not result in firearms repercussions. However, AVOIDING any treatment until a condition worsens to the point that erratic behavior is reported by other's and treatment is forced will likely result in all kinds of consequences. Avoiding treatment is the dangerous nature of many mental health conditions!

Hey, it's the internet, we all know that stories got truncated and/or slanted or changed to support a point. Case in point, I don't know of many inpatient mental facilities that are checking in and holding patients simply for "sleep depravation". That's usually a symptom.

My point was, NOT seeking treatment for a mental condition and/or illness that affects behavior is dangerous and will have consequences. Don't know how you can reasonably expect otherwise.

WardenWolf
February 15, 2011, 04:56 AM
I have a young friend (age 13) with a psychologically abusive mother who checks him into the psych ward to get rid of him for a while a couple of times a year. I worry about his future rights. He's a very level-headed kid, but his mother is a piece of work.

Titan85
February 15, 2011, 08:34 AM
There seems to be a lot of confusion about whether or not you have to be ordered by a court to go for treatment before you are disqualified or if any inpatient stay at a mental institution will automatically disqualify you.

I had a x girlfriend tell the cops I was suicidal which landed me in a mental institution for observation for the least amount of time possible before they released me with no mental disorder diagnosis. I can buy firearms, but have yet to find out if I can get my concealed carry permit (will find out feb 24 though).

Ohio's law is really confusing. In some places it says you must be sent to treatment by a court to disqualify, in others it says any impatient stay "for reasons other than observation" will disqualify you.

cskny
February 15, 2011, 08:37 AM
Wardenwolf, I'm sorry to hear that. That example makes a lot more sense to me.

I hope you're working to remove custody and/or decision making away from the abuser.

WardenWolf
February 15, 2011, 09:28 AM
Wardenwolf, I'm sorry to hear that. That example makes a lot more sense to me.

I hope you're working to remove custody and/or decision making away from the abuser.

Unfortunately I do not live in the same state, and while I have contacted authorities multiple times, nothing much has come of it, though they are loosely watching her. She's nowhere near as bad as she used to be, though. Normally she's fine. I talk to him on Skype so I hear what goes on in the background. She definitely has a skewed view of cause and effect, though, specifically refusing to link her behavior to his response. I'd adopt him if I could, and I've told him as such. At least it offers some comfort that someone out there cares.

cskny
February 15, 2011, 10:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cskny
Wardenwolf, I'm sorry to hear that. That example makes a lot more sense to me.

I hope you're working to remove custody and/or decision making away from the abuser.
Unfortunately I do not live in the same state, and while I have contacted authorities multiple times, nothing much has come of it, though they are loosely watching her. She's nowhere near as bad as she used to be, though. Normally she's fine. I talk to him on Skype so I hear what goes on in the background. She definitely has a skewed view of cause and effect, though, specifically refusing to link her behavior to his response. I'd adopt him if I could, and I've told him as such. At least it offers some comfort that someone out there cares.


That just sucks. And as a non-biological party (I interpreted from "adopt"), you are probably between a rock and a hard place. That poor kid is going to have to deal with the damage for a long time, letting him know (over and over) that you care probably means a lot more to him then we as adults even appreciate.

You certainly don't need advice from me because I'm sure you already do this, but try and record/document whatever you legally can. In the end, you don't know what's going to happen tomorrow and how he might need your help. I feel for you, and him.

Gregaw
February 15, 2011, 01:06 PM
The person in question simply checked himself into the local hospital (a normal hospital) in the middle of the night, driven there by a friend. All of his treatment was there. But it was listed as a treatment for a mental condition and that was enough to trigger the loss of his FOID card.

cskny
February 15, 2011, 02:20 PM
The person in question simply checked himself into the local hospital (a normal hospital) in the middle of the night, driven there by a friend. All of his treatment was there. But it was listed as a treatment for a mental condition and that was enough to trigger the loss of his FOID card.


OK. I'm still guessing his "diagnosis" was the problem, not simply his presence at the 'normal' hospital.

Or maybe he was just a victim of an unfair system. Don't know, and HIPAA isn't going to let us know.

scrood?
February 16, 2011, 08:44 PM
"I had a x girlfriend tell the cops I was suicidal which landed me in a mental institution for observation for the least amount of time possible before they released me with no mental disorder diagnosis. I can buy firearms, but have yet to find out if I can get my concealed carry permit (will find out feb 24 though). "


Titan, this is EXACTLY what happened to me (48 hour hold). I can buy firearms no problem. However we'll see about my ccw permit as well, I should find out very soon, I applied about 3 weeks ago. I did get diagnosed with mental depression however and asked to seek counseling for a month. There are cases in federal court where this type is thing is NOT a disqualifier for firearms purchase however.

The law states "not have been found mentally ill and dangerous in the past 10 years". It goes on to say "EPC (Emergency protective custody AKA suicide watch)". does no count.

Not sure what that applies to me, they don't either. I do not even know if I was found mentally ill and dangerous (if this is what they mean by depression). However, regardless, I waited for that 10 year mark for 4 years (this was in early oct 2000) to pass and so I applied 3 weeks ago, figuring either way, if doesn't count or it does, it is out of scope.

The main issue i have is the application asks "Have you EVER been found mentally ill and dangerous". To which I felt compelled to answer Yes just in case I was found that way. However, the state statute clearly indicates in the past 10 years, the question does not mention this. There is a question about crimes of violence on there as well, worded "have you ever been convited of a crime of violence" but the statute says "in the past 10 years". My guess is they know they have to research it if you answer yes, and it does not auto disqualify.

Fortunately I live in a shall issue state, so if they deny me they have to prove I had formal treatments etc and that will have to become a standard. When I talked the attorney for the state patrol years ago, he said in worst case I'll have to go get cleared by a phsyc. But I will now argue the 10 year limitation.

Here is a link to the app I had to fill out.
http://statepatrol.nebraska.gov/forms/ccw/CCW_NSP1710_Application.pdf

Here's the rules and regs I referred to, which mirrors the statute:
http://statepatrol.nebraska.gov/forms/ccw/CCWRegs.pdf

Page 4, search for "mental", the rule is 005.01F

The action brought against me is called the EPC (Emergency protective custody).

Another interesting thing is this, if I took myself to the hospital, to be treated, does that not count a voluntary comittment?

This rule, seems to mention the federal statute, which I am hoping it is the SAME standard, and if it is then I am good to go.

A promising thing for me is this:
http://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/34057994.html

The chief of police talks about how hes worried someone they took into EPC a few years earlier got a permit. So people are getting them even though they have an EPC.

Same town, something scary, guy gets arrested for lying on the app, which is why I answered that question YES.
http://journalstar.com/news/local/article_a6b9c6f1-f03a-5c66-9b55-fd78014001a6.html

What do you guys think, am I good to go?

WardenWolf
February 16, 2011, 09:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cskny
Wardenwolf, I'm sorry to hear that. That example makes a lot more sense to me.

I hope you're working to remove custody and/or decision making away from the abuser.
Unfortunately I do not live in the same state, and while I have contacted authorities multiple times, nothing much has come of it, though they are loosely watching her. She's nowhere near as bad as she used to be, though. Normally she's fine. I talk to him on Skype so I hear what goes on in the background. She definitely has a skewed view of cause and effect, though, specifically refusing to link her behavior to his response. I'd adopt him if I could, and I've told him as such. At least it offers some comfort that someone out there cares.


That just sucks. And as a non-biological party (I interpreted from "adopt"), you are probably between a rock and a hard place. That poor kid is going to have to deal with the damage for a long time, letting him know (over and over) that you care probably means a lot more to him then we as adults even appreciate.

You certainly don't need advice from me because I'm sure you already do this, but try and record/document whatever you legally can. In the end, you don't know what's going to happen tomorrow and how he might need your help. I feel for you, and him.
At least his mother has accepted that I'm not a threat to him, although that took some convincing (understandable when an adult befriends someone his age). I have my cellphone text message logs and my Skype text logs, though I'm out luck with the voice conversations. She allows him to use her cellphone to call me. Overall I've established a semi-positive dialog with her, although she's still always convinced she's right.

hermannr
February 18, 2011, 08:25 PM
Interesting the reg says 10 years, but the app says ever? Is there a section to "explain" if you answer any of these questions affiratively?"

If the app is more strict than the reg, I would expect an "explain" section..

randytrapper
February 20, 2011, 05:44 PM
My buddy here in PA was acting strange and talking about killing himself so his wife called the police. He was involintarly committed for 72 hrs. Then released. When he went to apply for his 5 year renewal he was turned down. The way I understood it is, if he would have agreed to go to the hospital he would not have been denied. But since it was involuntary they would not re-issue to him. At least that's what he told me.
Some how that info must get shared?
In my opinion he probably should not be carrying. BUT, if he was going to do something stupid he would.. With or without the permit.

scrood?
February 20, 2011, 07:54 PM
randy, how long before the renewal was he taken in? mines been over 10 years ago.

randytrapper
February 20, 2011, 08:31 PM
It was about 2 years if memory serves me correctly. In PA our permits are good for 5 years unless revoked. In his case, it's not like they came and took it after his issues. But when he tried to renew they denied him. And it was probably 2 years later.

scrood?
February 20, 2011, 08:32 PM
I bet if he waits long enough he can get it back.

chrisg511
April 27, 2011, 08:12 AM
question i have been diagnosed with a mental illness, and typically have thoughts of suicide 24/7, this having been said i have my own reasoning to not act on these thoughts anyways, i was thinking about getting a CCW in Xenia, Ohio when i am old enough(i am almost 20, so i believe another year to go) but unsure if my disabilities would be considered mentally defective or not? if anyone could give me some insight that would be wonderful? thanks a ton chris511

MtnSpur
April 27, 2011, 10:10 AM
question i have been diagnosed with a mental illness, and typically have thoughts of suicide 24/7, this having been said i have my own reasoning to not act on these thoughts anyways, i was thinking about getting a CCW in Xenia, Ohio when i am old enough(i am almost 20, so i believe another year to go) but unsure if my disabilities would be considered mentally defective or not? if anyone could give me some insight that would be wonderful? thanks a ton chris511

In Texas if you have been diagnosed with a mental illness you are not eligible to apply for a CCW (CHL here in TX).

A website search of CCW/CHL laws for states will direct you to the exact definition of that particular state's qualifications/disqualifications for this criteria as well as the right to own or buy weapons as well.

Bartholomew Roberts
April 27, 2011, 10:52 AM
chrisg511 - I'm unfamiliar with Ohio law and can't answer your question. Sorry.

In Texas if you have been diagnosed with a mental illness you are not eligible to apply for a CCW (CHL here in TX).

That is not correct. Simply being diagnosed with a mental illness does not prevent you from applying for a Texas CHL.

For the record, Texas Government Code 411.172 describes the eligibility requirements for CHL. The two sections that would concern people with mental illness are 411.172(a)(7) which requires a person "is not incapable of exercising sound judgment with respect to proper use and storage of a handgun"

This section is further elaborated upon at GC 411.172(d)-(f) which describes the following psychiatric issues as being disqualifying:

Originally Posted by GC 411.172(d) and (e)
(1) has been diagnosed by a licensed physician as suffering from a psychiatric disorder or condition that causes or is likely to cause substantial impairment in judgment, mood, perception, impulse control or intellectual ability;
(2) suffers from a psychiatric disorder or condition described by Subdivision (1) that:
(A) is in remission but is reasonably likely to redevelop at a duture time; or
(B) requires continuous medical treatment to avoid redevelopment;
(3) has been diagnosed by a licensed physician or declared by a court to be incompetent to manage the person's own affairs
(4) has entered in a criminal proceeding a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity

(e) The following constitutes evidence that a person has a psychiatric disorder or condition described by Subsection (d)(1):
(1) involuntary psychiatric hospitalization in the preceding five-year period;
(2) psychiatric hospitalization in the preceding two-year period;
(3) inpatient or residential substance abuse treatment in the preceding five-year period;
(4) diagnosis in the preceding five-year period by a licensed physician that the person is dependent on alcohol, a controlled substance, or a similar substance; OR
(5) diagnosis at any time by a licensed physician that the person suffers or has suffered from a psychiatric disorder or condition consisting of or relating to:
(A) schizophrenia or delusional disorder;
(B) bipolar disorder;
(C) chronic dementia, whether caused by illness, brain defect, or brain injury;
(D) dissociative identity disorder;
(E) intermittent explosive disorder; or
(F) antisocial personality disorder

Subdivision F goes on to explain that (e) is merely evidence and may be overcome by a certificate from a physician explaining that the condition is in remission and not likely to be develop at a future time.

CAVEAT: This was originally in PDF format, so I had to type it in myself. You probably want to go to read the relevant Government Code yourself just in case I mistyped something.

MtnSpur
April 27, 2011, 11:24 AM
I was referring to:
Originally Posted by GC 411.172(d) and (e)
(1) has been diagnosed by a licensed physician as suffering from a psychiatric disorder or condition that causes or is likely to cause substantial impairment in judgment, mood, perception, impulse control or intellectual ability;
So perhaps I should have been more specific, my apologies.

When it comes to mental impairment there are so many "instances, inclusions and exclusions" it does present an arguement for the state to deny application. Anyone can "apply" but whether that application is accepted is another issue and I'm certainly not legally qualified for that.

NavyLCDR
April 27, 2011, 12:08 PM
question i have been diagnosed with a mental illness, and typically have thoughts of suicide 24/7, this having been said i have my own reasoning to not act on these thoughts anyways, i was thinking about getting a CCW in Xenia, Ohio when i am old enough(i am almost 20, so i believe another year to go) but unsure if my disabilities would be considered mentally defective or not? if anyone could give me some insight that would be wonderful? thanks a ton chris511

Here is the requirement for the CHL:
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.125

(i) The applicant has not been adjudicated as a mental defective, has not been committed to any mental institution, is not under adjudication of mental incompetence, has not been found by a court to be a mentally ill person subject to hospitalization by court order, and is not an involuntary patient other than one who is a patient only for purposes of observation. As used in this division, “mentally ill person subject to hospitalization by court order” and “patient” have the same meanings as in section 5122.01 of the Revised Code.

Unless you have a court's determination that you are mentally ill, you should be good to go. If you were involuntarily committed to a mental hospital on a temporary basis for evaluation and were released at the required hearing, you should be good to go because:

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/5122.141

(A) A respondent who is involuntarily placed in a hospital or other place as designated in section 5122.10 or 5122.17 of the Revised Code, or with respect to whom proceedings have been instituted under section 5122.11 of the Revised Code, shall be afforded a hearing to determine whether or not the respondent is a mentally ill person subject to hospitalization by court order. The hearing shall be conducted pursuant to section 5122.15 of the Revised Code.

(B) The hearing shall be conducted within five court days from the day on which the respondent is detained or an affidavit is filed, whichever occurs first, in a physical setting not likely to have a harmful effect on the respondent, and may be conducted in a hospital in or out of the county. On the motion of the respondent, his counsel, the chief clinical officer, or on its own motion, and for good cause shown, the court may order a continuance of the hearing. The continuance may be for no more than ten days from the day on which the respondent is detained or on which an affidavit is filed, whichever occurs first. Failure to conduct the hearing within this time shall effect an immediate discharge of the respondent. If the proceedings are not reinstituted within thirty days, all records of the proceedings shall be expunged.

(C) If the court does not find that the respondent is a mentally ill person subject to hospitalization by court order, it shall order his immediate discharge, and shall expunge all record of the proceedings during this period.

If you enjoyed reading about "Curious about Mental Illness Denials" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!