The .pdf document that bsctov just posted is THE exact language that will be posted in the Federal Register next week as a "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking". The NPRM is a pre-determination comment period for enacting regulatory requirements under which regulated parties must comply.
The operative language in question is detailed on page 9:
In other words, any institution certified to provide mental health treatment, whether inpatient or outpatient is covered. Keep in mind that "institution" is not strictly a 100% mental health facility or "nuthouse". So, any court ordered treatment that would be legally considered to fall under "mental health"
MAY be included under that umbrella. That could include drug or alcohol treatment, anger management, depression, etc. These court orders
MAY include drug courts, family courts, etc.
I doubt any of the other proposals in the document would cause any reasonable person to take issue. Everything after the middle of page 10 is administrative in nature and no proposals are enumerated thereafter.
I deliberately use the word MAY, because the federal administration or department responsible for regulatory compliance with the NPRM (should it be enacted unamended) will have the option to include or exclude certain facilities, courts and court ordered treatments, via a clarification letter from the Administrator of said federal administration or department.
The law is the "what", the regulation is the "how". Federal regulations may apply to local, state and federal entities, to include courts, boards, commissions or any other legal lawful authorities. They may also include any segment of the public that would be covered under the rules. In this case, the regulated entities would be courts, boards, commissions or any other legal lawful authorities. They would be required to report to NICS any additional adjudications that would fall under the rules clarification(s). This has always been the case, but considerable confusion exists over what exactly a covered adjudication currently is.
The "expansionism" concern here is how the feds would view court (or other lawful authority) ordered outpatient treatment that is currently excluded from NICS reporting. It could be used to "widen the net" as happened with domestic abuse under the Lautenberg Amendment. It
could significantly expand the classification of prohibited persons in the "adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution" to include persons who heretofore have not been prohibited.
On background, I am a regulatory compliance inspector for the federal government. My job is to investigate allegations of non-compliance with federal regulations and prepare cases that may be heard before an administrative law judge. The concerns bsctov posted are not without merit. Hopefully there will be constitutional law scholars (who side with the 2nd Amendment) posting comments to the Federal Register on this one.