Now here is a real gem that was originally engineered by Sen. Charles Schumer D-NY but has been tweaked slightly by removing a section that was so blatantly illegal, not even these two had the guts to present it to the full congress (The removed section would have made a simple "Arrest" for a drug crime a disqualification under federal law.) but has been introduced in the House by Carolyn McCarthy D-NY
Here is the section that I have a serious problem with:
SEC. 103. ADJUDICATED AS A MENTAL DEFECTIVE; MENTAL HEALTH ASSESSMENT PLAN.
(a) Definition- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(36) The term `adjudicated as a mental defective' means, with respect to a person, that--
`(A) a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority has determined, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, mental illness, incompetency, or disease of the person, that the person--
`(i) is a danger to himself or others;
`(ii) lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs; or
`(iii) be compelled to receive services, including counseling, medication, or testing to determine compliance with prescribed medications, but not including testing for use of alcohol or for abuse of any controlled substance or other drug;
`(B) the person has been found insane by a court in a criminal case;
`(C) the person has been found incompetent to stand trial; or
`(D) the person has been found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to articles 50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C. 850a, 976b).'.
The underlined portion would add millions of Americans to the "Adjudicated Mentally Defective" category, and would not require a finding of danger to themselves or others. Simply being "Compelled to receive services" is enough to get you disqualified.
Note how "Services" is left undefined, and the word "including" is added to make sure certain things qualify but leaves the door open to rampant abuses by means of hostile interpretation.
As currently worded, if you are in a nasty divorce and at some point during the proceedings you are ordered to attend marriage counseling, you would be a prohibited person.
Or if you are a police officer, and you are ordered to anger management because of a very questionable ruling on a use of force situation, you career is now over because of your weapon disability.
Although this would never happen, if we want to get really technical, you could lose your gun rights if a judge were to order you to get lawn maintenance once a week. Since "Services" is not explicitly defined.
Many will probably point to the part that says " a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority has determined, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, mental illness, incompetency, or disease of the person, that the person--"
[However, this portion is legally insignificant, for the same reasons that being declared a danger to yourself or others is a prohibitor with or without it being "as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, mental illness, incompetency, or disease of the person" ] - For this portion in brackets, the ATF has stated in their letter released post-Virginia tech the following which support my interpretation of the bracketed text :
"Thus, for example, adjudication that a person was mentally ill and a danger to himself or others would result in Federal firearms disability, whether the court-ordered treatment was on an inpatient or outpatient basis. This is because the adjudication itself (a finding of danger due to mental illness) is sufficient to trigger the disability."
I really hope this bill doesn't pass, and if it does for whatever reason pass, it is ripped apart by NRA induced amendments.
Here is the section that I have a serious problem with:
SEC. 103. ADJUDICATED AS A MENTAL DEFECTIVE; MENTAL HEALTH ASSESSMENT PLAN.
(a) Definition- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(36) The term `adjudicated as a mental defective' means, with respect to a person, that--
`(A) a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority has determined, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, mental illness, incompetency, or disease of the person, that the person--
`(i) is a danger to himself or others;
`(ii) lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs; or
`(iii) be compelled to receive services, including counseling, medication, or testing to determine compliance with prescribed medications, but not including testing for use of alcohol or for abuse of any controlled substance or other drug;
`(B) the person has been found insane by a court in a criminal case;
`(C) the person has been found incompetent to stand trial; or
`(D) the person has been found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to articles 50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C. 850a, 976b).'.
The underlined portion would add millions of Americans to the "Adjudicated Mentally Defective" category, and would not require a finding of danger to themselves or others. Simply being "Compelled to receive services" is enough to get you disqualified.
Note how "Services" is left undefined, and the word "including" is added to make sure certain things qualify but leaves the door open to rampant abuses by means of hostile interpretation.
As currently worded, if you are in a nasty divorce and at some point during the proceedings you are ordered to attend marriage counseling, you would be a prohibited person.
Or if you are a police officer, and you are ordered to anger management because of a very questionable ruling on a use of force situation, you career is now over because of your weapon disability.
Although this would never happen, if we want to get really technical, you could lose your gun rights if a judge were to order you to get lawn maintenance once a week. Since "Services" is not explicitly defined.
Many will probably point to the part that says " a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority has determined, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, mental illness, incompetency, or disease of the person, that the person--"
[However, this portion is legally insignificant, for the same reasons that being declared a danger to yourself or others is a prohibitor with or without it being "as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, mental illness, incompetency, or disease of the person" ] - For this portion in brackets, the ATF has stated in their letter released post-Virginia tech the following which support my interpretation of the bracketed text :
"Thus, for example, adjudication that a person was mentally ill and a danger to himself or others would result in Federal firearms disability, whether the court-ordered treatment was on an inpatient or outpatient basis. This is because the adjudication itself (a finding of danger due to mental illness) is sufficient to trigger the disability."
I really hope this bill doesn't pass, and if it does for whatever reason pass, it is ripped apart by NRA induced amendments.