ex-felons are screwed, what about ex-mental patients?

[io333]

I've been studying some stuff not related to guns (hard to do!) and learned that in many states, people who attempt suicide are automatically involuntarily committed to mental institutions for evaluation.

Since there are excellent treatments for depression these days, it is for most sufferers a "cureable" illness.


I know about BATF not getting any funding for the administrative procedures necessary to restore a felon's firearms rights and so ex-felons are currently SOL.

What about ex-mental patients? Are they also SOL?


I found this case, but it's pretty old, and probably written before BATF funding dried up:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=477&invol=556

 

[SMMAssociates]

Unless I misread something, in OH, an involuntary commitment will probably keep you from getting (or keeping) a CHL.

Can't say about purchasing new guns or keeping the ones you have.

Things have changed.... A friend of mine, working LEO, was stuck in the psych ward at a local hospital for a few days. (Don't recall if it was voluntary or not.) He couldn't have matches to light a cigarette, but nobody cared when I was visiting him with a .38 under my jacket....

(Now they've got the usual CPZ signs, as if that'll keep the BG's out....)

Voluntary v.s. involuntary commitment - kinda like the old joke: "A neurotic knows he's crazy, and may even try to get help. A psychotic thinks everybody else is crazy...."

Regards,

 

[DMF]

Under 18USC922 to be considered a prohibited person for mental illness, you must be adjudicated as a mental defective. Meaning a court has to rule that you are so screwed up mentally you are incapable of making rational decisions on your own. Have you ever seen the kinds of battles that go on when it comes to questioning someone's mental capacity in court? It's an incredibly high threshold of mental illness to be adjudicated in court as a mental defective.

I come across people all day long who have been diagnosed with SEVERE, mental illness, have acted violently against themselves and others because of their mental problems, yet no court is going to declare them a mental defective.

If someone gets to the point that a court will declare them a mental defective, you do NOT want them owning firearms.

If the paranoid schizophrenic, who has violent outbursts doesn't get committed, the person with severe depression certainly isn't getting committed.

Voluntary commitment, or other voluntary treatment for mental health issues does NOT make someone a prohibited person under federal law.

 

[Gray Peterson]

What the last person posted was correct as far as federal law was concerned is correct. It has to do with mental incompetency hearings.

However, I've heard a few states where voluntary commitments have been a problem.

Being declared mentally incompetent requires several months, perhaps years if the person fights it. My partner had something this bad almost happen to him, but his family became financially destitute and couldn't continue the case.

Yes, you've heard the horror stories about families abusing the system in the past, though in the age of the internet, it's hard to do. That's how he was able to beat their lame ass attempts to subjegate him.

 

[Third_Rail]

....paranoid schizophrenic...

Many of us are nicer than you'd think.
Violent outbursts are uncommon, but absolutely need to be treated - myself, I don't have any.

Voluntary commitment... does NOT make someone a prohibited person under federal law.

My shotgun is proof enough of that.

 

[benEzra]

Voluntary commitment, or other voluntary treatment for mental health issues does NOT make someone a prohibited person under federal law.

Unless you live in Brookline, Mass, in which case the local LEO will yank your gun ownership permit for merely visiting a counselor ONCE to discuss the stress of med school... :banghead:

 

[whm1974]

Unless you live in Brookline, Mass, in which case the local LEO will yank your gun ownership permit for merely visiting a counselor ONCE to discuss the stress of med school...

I knew someday it will come to this. However how is the LEO going to know if you went to see a counselor?

-Bill

 

[io333]

What about the question on the 4473 though?


It states:

Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective or have you been committed to a mental institution?

Now I was told that in my state, a person who attempts suicide is automatically, involuntarily committed for some period of time, for observation and treatment. Therefore, any such person would have to answer YES on the 4473 for that question, and would be disqualified from firearms ownership. Am I wrong?

 

[Third_Rail]

You are correct, but only the honest would answer that question with a no if applicable.

 

[io333]

OK I found the section in 18USC922.

18USC922

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person -

...

(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;

...

to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

http://trac.syr.edu/laws/18USC922.html


That seems to preclude any possession or ownership, forever, by anyone who has ever been committed, regardless of circumstance, whether voluntarily or involuntarily.


So again my question is, is there any procedure by which such a person can have their firearms rights restored, or are they also SOL like ex-felons?

 

[DMF]

io333, your interpretation is incorrect. voluntarily seeking treatment, to include a voluntary extended in-patient treatment, does NOT make someone a prohibited person. For the purposes of that statute, a court must adjudicate the person a mental defective, or commit the person to a mental instituion.

 

[hammer4nc]

Don't forget: Our Lady of Peace Act"

My recollection is that this mis-named piece of federal legislation actually passed the House of Reps; got stalled in the senate in 2002. Anyone have a more recent update?

Highlights, from Gun Owners of America:

The bill would require states to turn over vast numbers of sometimes-personal records (on potentially all Americans) to the FBI for use in connection with the Instantcheck. These records would include any state record relevant to the question of whether a person is prohibited from owning a gun.

This starts with a large volume of mental health records, but the FBI could also require that a state forward all of its employment and tax records in order to identify persons who are illegal aliens. It could require that states forward information concerning drug diversion programs and arrests that do not lead to prosecution, in order to determine whether a person was "an unlawful user of... any controlled substance...."

The bill would also help FBI officials to effectively stop millions of additional Americans from purchasing a firearm, because they were guilty in the past of committing slight misdemeanors. You might remember the Lautenberg Gun Ban which President Bill Clinton signed in 1996? Because of this ban, people who have committed very minor offenses that include pushing, shoving or, in some cases, even yelling at a family member have discovered that they can no longer own a firearm for self-defense.

Link: http://www.gunowners.org/a111202.htm

Suppose this bill passed...Would the mymidon swarms resign en-masse, over this final intrusion of privacy? Or, would they simply explain how fedgov is so busy chasing dangerous criminals that they would never have time to pry into everyone's medical files? Hmmmm....

 

[The_Antibubba]

"Committed to a mental institution" is involuntary. Checking oneself in to the hospital is voluntary. If the courts weren't involved, it isn't an issue.

 

[carp killer]

If you can answer the Three Questions, you are not crazy.


1 Who are you?
2 Where are you?
3 Do you know what day this is?


They won't commit you if you get two out of three.

 

[io333]

So what you are all saying is that a "commitment," for the purposes of this law, requires a *court order* and that someone who is forced, against his/her will, to undergo psychiatric care, upon the order of a mere doctor without court order, was not "committed." Correct?

And you are sure?


I'd love to see some kind of cite for that.

 

[io333]

And also, if someone WAS committed by court order, is there any procedure by which they can have their firearms rights restored or not?

 

[c_yeager]

Now I was told that in my state, a person who attempts suicide is automatically, involuntarily committed for some period of time, for observation and treatment. Therefore, any such person would have to answer YES on the 4473 for that question, and would be disqualified from firearms ownership. Am I wrong?

Well, not necessarily. Suicide attempts are often held involuntarily, this is true. However, a hospital is not a mental institution. At least not by it's own definition. Really, it depends on what the government considered to be a "mental intitution". To my knowledge places that actually identify themselves as such are few and far between. I can't think of a single facility in Western Washington that actually calls itself a "mental institution".

These people arent actually "committed" either. A physician CAN hold a person for a limited time against their will. But, they arent committed untill its done by a court order. And that is a full on legal process complete with lawyers, judges, and doctors present. A physician's decision to hold a person is a medical decision based on the available evidence (competence of the patient and likelyhood of causing themselves or others hard). A committment is a legal decision based on a strict set of criteria.

A good analogy is to liken it to our regular justice system. The doctor is like the police officer, he can arrest you and hold you pending the passage of judgement by a court of law (in the case of mental health the "court" is usually a board of mental health or somesuch depending on the state).

 

[DMF]

io333, I don't have a cite handy, but if you call your local ATF office and ask they can explain it to you. Commitments are court ordered, I don't have a reference handy, but I did ask a former AUSA about this.

 

[lwsimon]

I went through a period of severe depression tempered with a fair amount of paranoia, but I refused to stay in any mental health facility for longer than an appointment. Can never be too careful in these times...

Just read over that, sounds rather bad... I'm sure you guys understand though, there is a difference between rational precaution and irrational fear.

 

[Third_Rail]

They won't commit you if you get two out of three.

They won't commit you if you can get even one of those correct, or if you're coherent and alert.

 

[JohnBT]

I can't cite chapter and verse (because it's too early to look them up) but here's what I know from 30 years of related professional work that gives me access to the clients/patients and their confidential records. The procedures are based on Federal mental health law and are generally the same across the country.

The intial hospitalization for 'acting weird'(I'm not a licensed mental health professional so I can say politically incorrect stuff like crazy, nuts and bonkers) can be for up to 72 hours. Around here this is commonly referred to getting a green warrant on somebody and requires a determination by a designated mental health professional that they are a threat to themselves or others. Usually a family member will call the mental health hotline nummber, or the police will, to get the ball rolling. This is NOT an adjudication by a court, but an administrative procedure resulting in an evaluation. After the evaluation period there is a hearing that might result in a commitment, a voluntary admission or release. The first one is the bad one.

Here's an example. A middle-class guy had done so much coke that he went downtown and tried to swear out a warrant on the devil. While he was doing his 72-hour evaluation some of the hospital staff asked him where he got such good coke and tried to find out how to make a connection with the supplier. By the time he had his hearing he was sober and the judge released him, so he does not have a commitment on his record for the purposes of the 4473. I guess they could have charged him for possession based on his record-setting blood work, but no charges of any kind were filed and his record is clean.

John

Q: What day is it?

A: Today.

 

[JohnBT]

I forgot to comment on this...

"They won't commit you if you can get even one of those correct, or if you're coherent and alert."

Exactly, you must pose an immediate danger to yourself or others, so if you're coherent and alert you walk away from the magistrate's hearing with no record of 'a commitment.'

Even if they intend to commit someone at the hearing, they'll often offer the person the opportunity to sign themselves in for treatment and avoid having a commitment on their record. Probably cuts down on the paperwork, too.

John

It's been said that neurotics build castles in the sky, but psychotics live in them.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Just read over that, sounds rather bad... I'm sure you guys understand though, there is a difference between rational precaution and irrational fear.

"Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me."

 

[io333]

Thank you everyone. That answered 99% of my question. Except for the part about whether there exists any procedure to get one's rights restored after court ordered involuntary commitment.

I'm guess i'll just have to assume that since there is no funding for the ex-felon procedure, the same goes for ex-mental unless I find contrary info.

 

[Third_Rail]

Except for the part about whether there exists any procedure to get one's rights restored after court ordered involuntary commitment.

It exists, but is unfunded and mostly ignored, as you figured.