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.
Curious about Mental Illness Denials
- Thread starter scrood?
- Start date
- Status
Frozen North
Member
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.
She was judged mentally incompetent and is barred from ever owning a firearm of any kind.
Last edited:
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.
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.
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.
CA is the only state that seems to have the mental health stuff well defined.
BeerSleeper
Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2010
- Messages
- 688
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.
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.
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
Member
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.
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
Member
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
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
Member
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.
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.
leadaddict
Member
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.
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.
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
Member
Federal Denials, 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 are in the 'Adjudicated Mental Health' category.
DenaliPark
member
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.
Member
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
Member
"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
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
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.
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
Member
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.
I did 2 weeks with no sleep due to and extreme thyroid condition. Its no fun and you will begin to scare yourself.
leadaddict
Member
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.
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.
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
member
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.
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.
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.
- Status
