Specific laws - mental health and guns

In a few states as I recall, but generally no.

You'll need to be more specific as to location and possibly even the diagnosis, treatment or general situation you thinking about.

John

(Depending on the state) most of the time, a person MUST be adjudicated as mentally ill -- meaning, a demonstrable danger to themselves or others, or is so dysfunctional they cannot take care of themselves on a daily basis. Any voluntary treatment is GENERALLY not counted, unless the state law has something in it that is an exception.

There are very few people who need to worry at this time, though I still find it to be a troubling slippery slope.

PTK, by what you just said, as long as the "committed overnight" part was voluntary, then you won't have a problem. In Washington state, you won't lose your rights according to Washington state until you are involuntarily committed for longer than two weeks; the FEDERAL ban is triggered at anytime after an involuntary committment, no matter the length.

I am not a lawyer, nor a head shrinker, but that's my understanding.

Most states (all states?) have a procedure to get people who may be a danger to themselves or others off the street for an evaluation. In Virginia a person can be 'green warranted' and evaluated for up to 72 hours. After the evaluation period there is a hearing that results in one of three things: release, agreeing to a voluntary commitment or a legal ruling for an involuntary commitment. It's only the involuntary one that matters when it comes to gun ownership.

I'm guessing the overnight thing was an evaluation. Or maybe even a straight voluntary commitment - somebody, family or police, drives the person to the psych unit and convinces them to sign themselves in and the unit to treat them.

It's all in the details.

John
I'm not a lawyer, but I've worked with a lots of folks who have been through the system and I've seen the paperwork and psych reports.

. . . the FEDERAL ban is triggered at anytime after an involuntary committment, no matter the length.

Click to expand...

Not true, short term commitments, such as an overnight commitment for observation, usually will not make the person prohibited.

However, as I regularly say; if this is more than a hypothetical question please consult with a competent attorney who is experience with the relevant federal, state, and local laws that may apply.

Not true, short term commitments, such as an overnight commitment for observation, usually will not make the person prohibited.

Click to expand...

Perhaps this is nit-picky, but an involuntary 72-hour hold for observation isn't the same as an involuntary commitment. So, a person could be held for up to 72 hours against their will to make a determination whether or not they fit the criteria for an actual commitment -- in most states a person is required to have a hearing in front of a judge with the ability to have an attorney representing them and the opportunity to present witnesses and evidence on their behalf before this determination is made.

Again, in Washington state, if you are involuntarily committed for more than two weeks, then according to the state, you lose your right to bear arms as far as the state is concerned. According to the Feds, and involuntary commitment of any length of time, will remove your right to legally own firearms.

Before the current legislation amending the Lautenberg Act, once a person was on the federal list regardless of how they got there, they could effectively be on there for life, even if the state government never removed your rights to firearms ownership in the first place or you successfully petitioned to get your rights back under state law. This newest amendment should allow people to once again be completely removed from both a state and federal firearms loss.

"Perhaps this is nit-picky, but an involuntary 72-hour hold for observation "

Not nit-picky at all, it's the crux of the situation. Like I said, it's an evaluation, not a commitment. The commitment comes after the hearing if the person isn't released or allowed to voluntarily seek treatment.


Going back to the original post... "those with mental health issues"

Honestly, mental health issues (diagnoses, problems, whatever) have nothing to do with it. You have to have a legal issue - an involuntary commitment made at a formal hearing. And you get a lawyer, it's a legal proceeding.

John

Not nit-picky at all, it's the crux of the situation.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Honestly, mental health issues (diagnoses, problems, whatever) have nothing to do with it. You have to have a legal issue - an involuntary commitment made at a formal hearing. And you get a lawyer, it's a legal proceeding.

Click to expand...

Very well articulated.

There are lots and lots of laws. Most are state laws. Some are very general, some are very specific as to illness, treatment, and restrictions.

Concealed carry statutes usually have a provision pertaining to mental illness and many are quite restrictive, even absent commitment/adjudication. Be cautious.

BUT--Y-O-U must investigate how the specific state-level reporting apperatus meshes and reports to the Fed Gov.

Here in IL, as an extreme example, come June 1--ANY mental health professional may 'turn in' a patient he or she fears may be a risk to himself or others. No hearing needed--and NO ONE really knows how that new law will pan out. Since the law specifically exempts the practitioner from any civil liability that could result from 'good faith' reporting, some may just go hog wild and error on the side of 'caution' more often than not.

On the state level, this means FOID card revocation--but it means that individuals will be rolled up in the batch of names sent up the chain to the Fed Gov.

I'm not trying to be alarmist, but the best bet is to investigate how the state mechanism operates as far as you can.

At a Federal level, EXACTLY what I thought, and exactly what I needed to see.

Click to expand...

One does not need to be adjudicated at a Federal level... but they do need to be legally adjudicated a danger to self or others owing to a mental health condition.

If one has never been in front of a judge in an adversarial proceeding, then there is little likelihood that they meet the criteria for exclusion.

As noted, the temporary involuntary commitment for MH evaluation (temporary hold, emergency detention order, etc.) is exactly that, an evaluation... it is not an adjudication of danger to self or others.

Temporary detention and adjudication in the MH realm roughly parallel the principles of arrest and conviction.

On the other hand, there are jurisdictions where a temporary involuntary commitment either must be signed by a judge, or is signed by a judge in general practice. It still isn't a formal adjudication, but since it comes from the bench it is a slightly grayer area.

Since the law specifically exempts the practitioner from any civil liability that could result from 'good faith' reporting, some may just go hog wild and error on the side of 'caution' more often than not.

Click to expand...

I strongly suspect that this will quickly lead to a evaluative protocol.

MH practitioners in most jurisdictions already have a "must divulge" obligation in issues of perceived or expressed threat to others, as well as child welfare issues. Indeed, I believe that in virtually every jurisdiction in the United States, MH practitioners face criminal penalties for failure to report suspected child abuse or neglect.

The fact that they are required to make these reports however does not result in an automatic finding against the client, rather it results in an investigation of the claim by the State agency charged with that duty.

One of my responsibilities at one point during my career was teaching Mandated Reporting Policy to multi-jurisdictional law enforcement officers, medical and MH professionals, educators, etc. A common concern voiced was: "what if I come into contact with a child that I THINK is abused, but I'm not sure? I don't want to be responsible for having someone's child taken away mistakenly".

I used to explain to them that if they call in a report, it DOES NOT automatically result in any action other than an investigation of their concern... which, if they are truly concerned, is legitimate. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the investigators to determine whether or not there is a substantial risk or an overt crime has occurred, and there must be a formal adversarial process if any action (criminal or civil) is taken.

My own concern is not so much the reporting protocols. The validity of any report can be investigated, contested, etc. Despite the fact that a mandated reporter might not face liability, if a professional repeatedly calls in bogus reports to law enforcement, or any other agency for that matter, bet on it that they will quickly be getting an earful (by telephone if they are lucky) one way or the other from highly PO'd and extremely busy investigators and their admin... been there, done that.

My concern is more that the State requires a FOID in the first place. I think that is the area that requires the most attention.

This was an entirely theoretical discussion with a friend who was 100% convinced that any stay at all in a mental institution or any medications for mental health would mean no guns.

Click to expand...

No. Not at all. And in fact, many drugs commonly used for what we understand as traditional "psychiatric treatment" are also commonly used for treating the same symptoms in the absence of diagnosed MH conditions.

For instance, it is not uncommon to treat patients having difficulty coping with newly diagnosed medical conditions with antidepressants, those anxiously awaiting surgery with anti-anxiety meds, depakote is used to treat both seizures and bipolar, folks nervous about flying frequently get sedatives, etc..

MH conditions aren't the major consideration, the presence of uncontrolled, dangerous and unlawful behaviors associated with them are.

There are of course those who contend that any record of treatment for MH conditions might serve to compromise one's gun-owning future... and this might indeed come to pass.

I strongly suspect however, given the continual advancement rather than erosion of the recognition of the rights and freedoms of those with MH conditions, that we will all lose our RKBA on the increasingly espoused principle that "guns have no legitimate place in civilized society" well before anyone living peacefully with a MH condition ever has to seriously worry about being unduly persecuted.

PTK / CFriesen--again limited ONLY to IL--ANY stay in a mental health facility causes an AUTOMATIC revocation of the FOID for 5 years. Self admitted or not, 'dangerous to self' or not, doesn't matter--it has been that way for decades. Come June 1st., we are are now looking at cetain outpatient visits entering the same catagory. And this change in law dovetailed with the creation of a mechanism to report the list to Fed Gov (IL used to handle its own phone checks). It passed here WITH support and little notice or scruitiny of pro-RKBA groups like the ISRA; After all, it ONLY applied to the 'mentally ill'.

I am optomistic that the stigma against mental illness will erode--but that is an uphill battle. There is an activist faction of the mental health 'community' that is virulently anti--they are fighting to include the mere OWENERSHIP of firearms as a sign or symptom of PTSD--particularly among returning U.S. service persons.

And no, I'm not taking things to GOA's somewhat alarmist levels--but the need to be concerned is real.

A key in practical terms is finding the right mental health practitioner that will be sypathetic to RKBA/privacy concerns. How things are charted and coded in medical records are where the rubber meets the road--now and in possible futures.

Sorry to prattle on--I'm involved in the subject somewhat as it affects me personally.

PTK / CFriesen--again limited ONLY to IL--ANY stay in a mental health facility causes an AUTOMATIC revocation of the FOID for 5 years. Self admitted or not, 'dangerous to self' or not, doesn't matter--it has been that way for decades. Come June 1st., we are are now looking at cetain outpatient visits entering the same catagory. And this change in law dovetailed with the creation of a mechanism to report the list to Fed Gov (IL used to handle its own phone checks). It passed here WITH support and little notice or scruitiny of pro-RKBA groups like the ISRA; After all, it ONLY applied to the 'mentally ill'.

Click to expand...

I know I shouldn't be surprised, but doesn't this law serve as a deterrent for seeking help in order to prevent oneself from snapping and going to the mall on a killing spree?

PTK / CFriesen--again limited ONLY to IL--ANY stay in a mental health facility causes an AUTOMATIC revocation of the FOID for 5 years. Self admitted or not, 'dangerous to self' or not, doesn't matter--it has been that way for decades.

Click to expand...

Wow. And it has been like that for decades huh?

The outpatient segment of the new law is worded to require demonstration of imminent risk to self or others in order to facilitate reporting. I'm surprised that some movement hasn't occurred toward the inclusion of similar language for inpatient reporting.

I imagine that is particularly onerous to those admitting themselves for treatment of eating disorders, etc. I am also surprised at the short-sightedness of the MH community in that this situation represents a potentially huge deterrent to voluntary treatment.

This is Illinois after all. Until recently, the inpatient reporting was only 100% all-the-time from the state-run mental hospitals and facilities. Private institutions, drug rehab outfits, etc. would not always report self-admitted patients to the Illinois State Police--who run the FOID program by law. So if you were of lesser means or un-insured, and had recourse to end up in a state mental hospital, you'd come home to a nice letter from the ISP letting you know to return your FOID by mail dispose of your guns AT ONCE or become a felon. Not even so much as a 'hope you're feeling better...' And the story from most private places was the same.

Of course, there is verbiage that allows someone in that situation to petition the revocation and seek redress at the sole discretion and judgment of the ISP--but only AFTER you turn in your FOID and (if you're lucky) give your guns to a family member or pal who can legally own them. The only other recourse is to turn them in for destruction to the police.

And ALL this nonsense does is keep those who value their rights from seeking treatment--MANY returning soldiers who really need help in that number as well. And when they end up with alcohol and drug problems we wonder 'why'??!!

the Texas concealed handgun statute language regarding mental health has changed a bit since the beginning. The application asks if the applicant has been inpatient in a mental health facility or facility for treatment of alcohol addiction in the previous five years.
There are specific diagnoses precluding issuance of a chl. These include schizophrenia, manic depressive disorder, psychopathic personality disorder, incapacitation due to dementia. Final decision is handled by the same medical board that passes on ability to drive a car. Regardless of disgnosis or history, an applicant can become eligible if he is not taking medications for control of a condition rendering him incapable of managing his own affairs or safely handling and storing a handgun or submits a note from a psychiatrist that he is in remission from the condition and it is not likely to recur.
I am aware of one person who achieved a disability check by convincing VA/SSA that he was mentally disabled. DPS sent him some questionaires for his VA doctor to complete. He never followed through on this. the license was not suspended or revoked but he doubts they would renew it without the documentation.

DPS training staff stresses that the current and future state is important-not history which mith include inpatient treatment for post trama or temporary depression over loss of a family member.

And ALL this nonsense does is keep those who value their rights from seeking treatment--MANY returning soldiers who really need help in that number as well. And when they end up with alcohol and drug problems we wonder 'why'??!!

Click to expand...

Yeah. That's what I find particularly appalling.

A significant number of MH, LE, and medical professionals are not going to be particularly gun-friendly, and as such not terribly concerned with anyone's gun-rights. That is to be expected as they are simply a cross-section of the rest of society.

What really irks me is that the law flies in the face of best-practice policy. The state's MH and medical professionals ought to be wholesale against the non-specific language of this law on the simple basis that it strongly deters voluntary treatment.

Do you know if any national MH advocacy groups were consulted during the process of fighting the formation of this law? I suspect it wouldn't take much to convince several of them to voice quite a vocal position in favor of amending it to read with more specificity. It's a very clear MH rights issue as well as something of a health promotion issue.

CFriesen--I don't know how the situation ended up so crazy in Illinois. I don't think anyone consulted anyone about anything. Fixing such laws is easier, I would think, if one could get the VFW or Legion on board; they have a fairly strong voice.