Mental Defectives and Firearms Ownership?

[coloradokevin]

I was recently approached by a family friend regarding a situation he is currently facing when attempting to buy firearms. This friend came to me with his questions because he knows that I'm employed as a police officer, but I'm honestly not sure how to answer his question, and I don't want to provide him with bad information. Here is the situation:

This friend had a bad breakup with a long-term girlfriend approximately two years ago. No domestic violence issues were present in this breakup, and neither party was ever charged with any crime. A temporary protection order was issued against my friend during this time, but this protection order was later removed, and was never made permanent.

During the course of this situation my friend became rather depressed, and evidently expressed to his ex-girlfriend that he was thinking of killing himself (this was prior to the protection order being issued, and he did not violate the law by talking with her). Naturally, she called the local sheriff's office out of concern for his safety, and my friend was ultimately placed on a standard M-1, 72 hour mental health hold. I remember the incident when it happened, and I know that he was ultimately kept beyond the 72-hour mark because the staff of the mental health facility believed that he was still a threat to himself (he was released after approximately 1 week or so total time).

Anyway, this friend has recovered from the low-point in his life, and doesn't exhibit any overt signs of depression currently. However, when he attempted to buy a firearm last month he told me that he was denied through NICS and/or CBI due to being a "mental defective".

I seem to recall some legislation from a few years ago concerning new state reporting requirements to NICS on mental health status, but I don't remember much beyond that.

Here are the questions:

1) Does this "mental defective" status forbid my friend from possessing firearms, or merely from purchasing firearms through an FFL?

2) How can my friend go about having this status removed? Is it even possible?

3) Does this "mental defective" status expire automatically, or does it require some action on the part of my friend?

 

[rbernie]

Some states conduct their own background check, effectively adding an additional layer into the process. That allows the state to keep records that are separate from the .fed records, and many times rejections are based upon these local records and not the .fed records. This is important to know, because the process to get this cleared up will depend heavily upon whether Colorado performs their own check or if the rejection is occurring at the Federal level... I don't know how CO does things for the Brady check, but that would be the first thing to find out IMO since the answer to this will effect how you address questions 2 & 3.

I am not an expert and I did not stay at a Holiday Inn last night, but AFAIK if a buyer falls afoul of a 4473 question, then they are prohibited from purchasing a firearm no matter the avenue that they use for the attempted purchase. I assume (!) that the involuntary hold is going to cause issues with question 11(f), and that would seem to be the next thing to determine.

But remember - I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWERS and I could be completely full of dookie.

 

[ArtP]

Interesting you bring this up. Generally I don't like to pass along second-hand info but was listening to a radio broadcast today with a question/answer session with an attorney.

Story goes a woman had the police called on her over a fight with her adult daughter - a verbal. During the fight the mother allegedly told the daughter, "if you want to kill yourself, go ahead". Police where called, and for reasons that weren't fully explained, the mother was placed on a "51-50" hold for three days, no mention of alcohol or drugs. She was released but her revolver and shotgun were confiscated and a superior court judge refuses to release them. Assume she doesn't qualify for a new purchase. She was told by the attorney you can fight the judges decision, but you'd have to convince the court the judge was factually wrong in the case. It was mentioned that would be an expensive route with poor odds. The only other avenue was to let the "order" naturally expire in five years.

This is in California if it matters. The caller certainly sounded sane, but who know what facts were left out. The caller also stated she was a gainfully employed registered nurse.

That may help answer how long until the order expires without interaction on your friends part.

The unfortunate part of your friends story is his apparent statement about suicide probably had more to do with getting sympathy and more favorable treatment from his girlfriend than anything else - a desperate move that cost him.

 

[Sebastian the Ibis]

placed on a standard M-1, 72 hour mental health hold. I remember the incident when it happened, and I know that he was ultimately kept beyond the 72-hour mark because the staff of the mental health facility believed that he was still a threat to himself

Was this consensual or involuntary? I assume without researching it, that you friend may have a serious problem if it was involuntary. To keep someone that long, I assume a doctor would have to make findings about their mental health, and a judge might even have to enter an order finding them mentally defective.

I believe being Baker Acted does not necessarily result in a loss of firearms privileges, but if you are you better shut up and lawyer up, since if you talk you might quite literally be found insane.

I assume there are hospital and court records that were created during all of this. Your best bet is to go through all that and figure out what actually happened.

 

[Diggers]

I’m sure this is a state by state law. Here in CA when you fill out the paperwork there is a question on it asking if you have ever been committed into a mental hospital.

I have no idea if there is a time limit if the answer is yes.

PS
There has got to be more to the story about that woman. A person can't be 5150-ed for not caring if someone kills them self.

 

[ArtP]

PS
There has got to be more to the story about that woman. A person can't be 5150-ed for not caring if someone kills them self.

i think there was too. The woman kept interrupting and the attorney was trying to keep her on track. Those attempt kept her from telling the whole story. It was a bunch of babble.

Don't you hate it when people ask a question and won't shut up long enough to hear the answer?

Anyway, the point was, the attorney told her there was a time limit as far as how long the involuntary 51-50 could keep her away from guns.

 

[bsctov]

As sorry as I am to say it, It is with great sadness that I must inform you that your friend is now forever prohibited from ever possessing a firearm or ammunition ever again. There is no way to remove this disability at this point in time.

 

[BADUNAME37]

I believe the most important aspect of any questions would be - did he voluntarily go to be admitted to the hospital (psychiatric ward), or was he forced?
Did he go on his own, or was it something required of him by LEO and/or a judge?

My take on it is, if you voluntarily go, you are fine, if the court mandates you go, you are NOT FINE.

YMMV

 

[coloradokevin]

placed on a standard M-1, 72 hour mental health hold. I remember the incident when it happened, and I know that he was ultimately kept beyond the 72-hour mark because the staff of the mental health facility believed that he was still a threat to himself

Was this consensual or involuntary? I assume without researching it, that you friend may have a serious problem if it was involuntary. To keep someone that long, I assume a doctor would have to make findings about their mental health, and a judge might even have to enter an order finding them mentally defective.

To clarify, this was an INVOLUNTARY mental health hold. In Colorado a LE officer has the authority to place someone on an involuntary hold for up to 72 hours when they reasonably believe that the person is an imminent threat to themselves or others, or is gravely disabled.

Beyond the 72-hour mark is beyond the scope of my employment, but from what I've read in the past, you pretty much need to be officially "committed" to be forced to stay beyond the 72-hour mark. I seem to recall that there are substantial differences between the requirements that need to be met for a short term commitment versus a long term one, and I think a judge needs to sign off on either type.

Regardless, my friend was kept beyond the 72-hour mark by approximately 2-4 days, if my memory serves. At the time of his incident the question was raised as to whether or not he was actually being committed, and the facility where he was staying indicated that the papers were processed to commit him, albeit briefly. All in all, he was in the same facility for the duration of his stay, and wasn't there for more than about a week.

I'm fairly certain that this incident is what led to his firearms purchase denial, but short of just telling him to hire a lawyer, I haven't the foggiest idea on what he'll need to do to clear up this "status".

He's not a bad guy, and I think it would be unfortunate if he was forever banned from owning a firearm due to a non-violent emotional breakdown he had during the course of a bad breakup. Clearly he didn't handle himself in the best manner, but I'd hardly equate his situation to that of a convicted felon. As such, I have to imagine that there is some recourse for this type of NICS denial, particularly since he never actually plead guilty to anything, and was never actually put in front of a court/jury for a trial... maybe I'm wrong?

 

[coloradokevin]

Interestingly enough, I just found a US Supreme Court case that almost addressed this issue:

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY v. GALIOTO

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


I'll have to read the section of federal law that it is talking about to see what I can find. If I discover the answer to this question, I'll certainly add it to this thread!

 

[JohnBT]

We need to know whether the treatment AFTER THE 72 HOURS was voluntary or involuntary. At this point, who knows what's actually listed in the database(s).

"required of him by LEO and/or a judge?"

Cops don't count. There has to be a commitment by a judge or similar hearing officer type of person. Around here they nearly always prefer to allow the person to "agree" to a voluntary commitment.

 

[Cosmoline]

Was this consensual or involuntary? I assume without researching it, that you friend may have a serious problem if it was involuntary. To keep someone that long, I assume a doctor would have to make findings about their mental health, and a judge might even have to enter an order finding them mentally defective.

This is my understanding as well. The 72 hour holds are not part of an adjudicative process or even a criminal one, and there should be no court case even created. But beyond that, to hold someone against his will, due process wakes up and requires at least some form of proceeding. That's where you may be "adjudicated" mentally ill.

Keep in mind though that some states have broader prohibitions that may reach even a 72 hour involuntary hold followed by a release.

but I'd hardly equate his situation to that of a convicted felon.

If he's attempted to purchase a firearm, that's precisely what he may well become.

Obviously it's hindsight in this case, but the lesson to take to heart is to KEEP YOUR LIPS TOGETHER if you value your rights! Asking for help or even talking about these matters could end up costing you very, very dearly. Don't trust the docs, don't trust the counselors and don't trust the cops on any of these maters. Some of the hotlines will even send an armed patrol to your place.

As much as it pains me to say it, DO NOT EVEN TRUST YOUR LAWYER when it comes to these matters! Many bars, in an effort to modernize their rules under pressure from the psychs, have started permitting lawyers to spill the beans to law enforcement if a client tells them he's very depressed or suicidal. So you can tell him where you buried five dozen murder victims and he'll keep that to himself, but if you tell him you're depressed about the prospect of going to prison he can have you confined to the nuthouse.

Any idea that these confinements are really a form of "treatment" rather than punishment is pretty soundly disproven by the effect the confinement can have on your fundamental freedoms. Not just to be free from confinement and warrantless searches, but to be able to buy a firearm years later. And we've recently seen a high-profile case out of Medford where these laws were used as a sort of pre-crime detention.

 

[coloradokevin]

We need to know whether the treatment AFTER THE 72 HOURS was voluntary or involuntary. At this point, who knows what's actually listed in the database(s).

John, as I mentioned above:

Regardless, my friend was kept beyond the 72-hour mark by approximately 2-4 days, if my memory serves. At the time of his incident the question was raised as to whether or not he was actually being committed, and the facility where he was staying indicated that the papers were processed to commit him, albeit briefly. All in all, he was in the same facility for the duration of his stay, and wasn't there for more than about a week.

Sorry if that came across with some ambiguity. To clarify, yes, he was INVOLUNTARILY kept at the facility BEYOND the 72 hours, which requires some type of official commitment, at least by my understanding.

Anyway, what sort of recourse does he have (if any) at this point? He is still under the impression that he can own guns, and believes that he just simply can't buy them... my research on this topic seems to show otherwise.

But, what can he do to remove this status from his record? Is it even possible? I seem to recall reading something about being able to petition to the US Attorney General, but that seems like one heck of a LONG shot. Is there anything else he can do, or should I just tell him that he is out of luck at this point?


I'm a police officer myself, and this is an area of the law I'd sure like to know something about. I don't really like the idea of stripping a person of their constitutional rights without first providing them with a trial... seems like there is too much gray area on this one!

 

[stickhauler]

That's really like asking how you get off the Homeland Security "no fly" list. And given that there have been a number of shootings by people who had been treated for psychotic incidents in the past lately, I doubt many courts are going to be falling all over themselves to restore gun rights to anyone with any history of hospitalization for mental health issues.

I have friends who went to VA facilities complaining of post traumatic stress disorder issues stemming from their military service. Not long after their initial visits where they complained about having issues with PTSD, court officials were contacted, and they sent police to confiscate their firearms, and they're now prohibited from having or buying firearms.

That's why even if I were still having nightmares about my time in the military, I sure as hell ain't letting anyone know about them, likely not even my wife, and I know she wouldn't tell anyone under regular situations. But if we were to ever consider divorce (which I don't consider likely either), that would be a perfect way for an angry spouse to put it to her estranged partner.

 

[coloradokevin]

That's really like asking how you get off the Homeland Security "no fly" list. And given that there have been a number of shootings by people who had been treated for psychotic incidents in the past lately, I doubt many courts are going to be falling all over themselves to restore gun rights to anyone with any history of hospitalization for mental health issues.

Understood. But, for the sake of argument, what process should a person follow if they are trying to remove themselves from such a list? Or is there no such process?

I don't in any way wish to suggest that I think true psychopaths should be wandering the streets while armed, and I can certainly say that my friend didn't make the best decisions along the way on this one. But, he isn't a criminal, he hasn't threatened anyone other than himself, he isn't a schizophrenic suffering from paranoid delusions, and isn't criminally insane. Honestly, my personal belief just from knowing him is that he wasn't even truly suicidal at the time of his commitment, as much as he was just trying to get his ex-girlfriend's attention in a ridiculous and irresponsible manner. Then, when he was placed on a hold after his dramatics failed to impress anyone (including my colleagues working for the police department where he lives), he simply didn't want to play ball with the psychologists at the facility, and was held until they felt comfortable in the fact that he wasn't truly a threat to himself or anyone else.

Was it stupid of him to act like this? Clearly. Did he bring this on himself? He sure did. Did his mouth right a check that his (butt) couldn't cash? I'd say so! But, was his behavior egregious enough that he should be forever deprived of a constitutional right? In my opinion, not in this case, particularly given the lack of any credible evidence to suggest that he ever intended to be any kind of threat to society!

 

[stickhauler]

I really couldn't tell you what the process is, or if there even is one. Just the threat of allowing someone who is truly a danger to society because of mental health issues is such a liability issue these days that if there is a process, I'd wager most judges would not want to overturn a firearm disability.

And I can sympathize with your friend, as I said, I have several friends who are now under firearm disability simply because they sought help from the VA on issues they were having related to PTSD. Myself, I'd think such cases would be viewed on an individual basis, but it seems they're using the "broad brush" method instead, if you report symptoms, you're banned from having guns.

It sure as hell ain't right to me, you go fight for your country, and suffer from the effects of your service, and you lose your rights.

 

[rainbowbob]

Any idea that these confinements are really a form of "treatment" rather than punishment is pretty soundly disproven by the effect...

Have you ever known someone you loved, someone smart and talented and kind, who believed they were controlling deadly laser beams out of their eyes and the CIA was sending messages to them through the television? Who could barely put an entire sentence together? Who was unable to bathe or feed themselves because they didn't see the need?

And then seen that same person - after forced treatment - returned to sanity? Playing the piano again...writing songs...relating to their friends and family again...

I have.

The problem is, in the throes of a deep and profound psychosis, that person is absolutely CERTAIN they are sane. Why would they voluntarily submit to a treatment they don't need?



coloradokevin: I believe the answer to your questions will be found in your state's firearm statutes.

At least that is where the answer can be found for my state (WA). Here, the restriction does not kick in unless and until a person has received an INVOLUNTARY court-ordered hospital stay of 14 days or more.

(2) The court at the time of the probable cause hearing and before an order of commitment is entered shall inform the person both orally and in writing that the failure to make a good faith effort to seek voluntary treatment...will result in the loss of his or her firearm rights if the person is subsequently detained for involuntary treatment under this section.

You can read it here if interested: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=71.05.240

There are also mechanisms in place to restore firearm rights, but I have not researched it and have no idea how likely it might be.

The important thing is that every state is different.

 

[Prince Yamato]

Have you ever known someone you loved, someone smart and talented and kind, who believed they were controlling deadly laser beams out of their eyes and the CIA was sending messages to them through the television? Who could barely put an entire sentence together? Who was unable to bathe or feed themselves because they didn't see the need?

I live in Austin, TX, what you describe is like half the people who live here...

Now, on a serious note and back to the OP's question:

I believe that his friend can have his record expunged by a judge or state governor, but I do not think that most people will take the case lightly and depending on the circumstances of the commitment, his chances of getting that record expunged may or may not be slim.

 

[Cosmoline]

Since it isn't a criminal record, expunging it may prove impossible. It's worth consulting a local attorney to see if this can be done, but don't hold out much hope.

Have you ever known someone you loved, someone smart and talented and kind, who believed they were controlling deadly laser beams out of their eyes and the CIA was sending messages to them through the television? Who could barely put an entire sentence together? Who was unable to bathe or feed themselves because they didn't see the need?

I'm not talking about that kind of genuine insanity. I'm talking about depression and feeling suicidal. You take a heck of a chance opening up about such matters, as you run the very real risk of being tossed into the same legal category reserved for psychotics who are getting instructions from the CIA dental x-ray lasers. Even though you may have never even attempted suicide, let alone threatened anyone but yourself.

Whether it's worth the risk is up to each person, but to pretend you're not taking a serious risk in opening up about suicidal ideation is foolish. You're trusting that whoever you're telling isn't going to have you rounded up by armed police and shut up without any semblance of due process for 72 hours. And you're hoping--HOPING--that you don't get shuffled away for more than that.

I wish the law was set up to distinguish between those held more than 72 because they're very depressed and those held because they're liable to shoot up a mall. But it doesn't. And it's not likely to in the near future.

So again, keep your lips together and sort out your own troubles. If you don't you may find yourself facing this kind of Orwellian ultimatum:

failure to make a good faith effort to seek voluntary treatment...will result in the loss of his or her firearm rights if the person is subsequently detained for involuntary treatment under this section.

So you've committed NO CRIME. None. Absolutely no criminal offense. And you don't want treatment for your alleged depression. But you can still lose both your liberty and your right to keep and bear arms unless you let them jab you full of whatever poison they're hawking. That's a position you want to stay well out of. Personally I'd rather jump off a cliff!

 

[Shadow 7D]

Wow, I thought that the BAFTE has a faq about this somewhere (not that those are completely accurate either) the gist of which was, you had to be adjudicated mentally incompetent/defective by a court, or involuntary committed to a mental institution. The VA cases, I heard the rumor, but never read anything but rumor.

My understanding was that a 72 hour psych hold was not enough to answer that question yes, that more had to happen.

There is a procedure to appeal the nogo from NICS, he might look into that, or if your state uses a local search, an appeal to that agency.

 

[ArtP]

The past few months I have been somewhat down in the dumps myself. In the old days a person in my shape was said to have "the blues". I guess now it's considered depressed. I'm not suicidal or crazy or contemplating anything stupid - I've just been "down". People go through that.

Anyway, my longtime girlfriend keeps wanting me to go the doctor and probably be prescribed an anti-depressant (she's the type to take a pain reliever the moment the word headache is even mentioned). I am adamantly against it for two reasons; A. it will pass and I don't need to be confused with medication and more important B. I am afraid of anything that I could ever be accused of, whether it comes to owning guns, getting health insurance or who knows.

Look what our society has done.

 

[oldbear]

ColoradoKevin, In Colorado when an officer P.O.S. someone, (Police Officers Statement) it is an involuntary commitment, biased on the officers judgment and affirmed by a medical doctor. If you have any questions about this ask your shift commander, patrol sergeant, or training officer.

”I'm a police officer myself, and this is an area of the law I'd sure like to know something about.”

Again ask your shift commander, patrol sergeant, or training officer.

“I don't really like the idea of stripping a person of their constitutional rights without first providing them with a trial... seems like there is too much gray area on this one!”

Kevin you are not stripping anyone of their constitutional rights, the courts have made the decision a person who has been involuntary committed to a mental facility may not buy or own firearms.
Kevin your job is to enforce the law and provide for the public safety, to the best of your ability. If you are not convinced that you are capable of doing the job you took an oath to do, perhaps you may want to think long and hard if you are really ready for a career in law enforcement.

 

[W.E.G.]

He needs to hire a real lawyer.

 

[Chemist]

I'm a physician's wife and I can tell you without doubt that the only person that can legally determine mental health is a judge. They read the doc's notes and MAKE A RULING. Your medical records alone cannot undo this ruling.

I also recommend he go and chat with a real lawyer and preferably someone that has experience in this area of law.

 

[coloradokevin]

ColoradoKevin, In Colorado when an officer P.O.S. someone, (Police Officers Statement) it is an involuntary commitment, biased on the officers judgment and affirmed by a medical doctor. If you have any questions about this ask your shift commander, patrol sergeant, or training officer.

------------

Again ask your shift commander, patrol sergeant, or training officer.


-------------

Kevin you are not stripping anyone of their constitutional rights, the courts have made the decision a person who has been involuntary committed to a mental facility may not buy or own firearms.
Kevin your job is to enforce the law and provide for the public safety, to the best of your ability. If you are not convinced that you are capable of doing the job you took an oath to do, perhaps you may want to think long and hard if you are really ready for a career in law enforcement.

Whoa there, bud.

You might try holding back on casting the stones there a little bit, and at least look for a bit more clarification on the intention of my posts in this thread before you question my career choice. First, I've been a cop for quite some time, and I have no doubts about my ability to perform my duties from a legal or moral perspective. Maybe I don't have the time in service as a person who goes by the screen name of "old bear", but I've certainly paid my dues on the street.

Secondly, I never said that I wouldn't take appropriate police action when dealing with the mentally ill, I merely stated an opinion that: "I don't really like the idea of stripping a person of their constitutional rights without first providing them with a trial... seems like there is too much gray area on this one!”.

That statement should be read on as it was written: by an American citizen and a registered voter, who still has some say in the way our government operates. At no point did I say that I would fail to perform my duties in a law enforcement capacity, and your allusion that I am unable to do so is grossly unfounded and, frankly, a little bit out of line.

Furthermore, I am well versed in the legal requirements and particulars of placing a person on an involuntary mental health hold (alternatively refered to as an M-1, or 72-hour mental health hold). However, as I said earlier in this thread, the situation I'm addressing here is concerning an incident where the subject was held beyond the 72-hour mark, which has nothing to do with the law enforcement officer, or their employing agency (as I'm sure you already know).

As such, I am naturally curious about the particulars of a more involved mental health commitment, and how that impacts a person's ability to buy/own/possess firearms in the future!



Here is a portion of the section of the Colorado Revised Statutes that addresses emergency mental health treatment, in case we need to clear up some questions on this matter before we can address this issue:

27-10-105. Emergency procedure.
(1) Emergency procedure may be invoked under either one of the following two conditions:
(a) When any person appears to be mentally ill and, as a result of such mental illness, appears to be an imminent danger to others or to himself or appears to be gravely disabled, a peace officer, a professional person, a registered professional nurse as defined in section 12-38-103 (11), C.R.S., who by reason of postgraduate education and additional nursing preparation has gained knowledge, judgment, and skill in psychiatric or mental health nursing, or a licensed clinical social worker licensed under the provisions of part 4 of article 43 of title 12, C.R.S., upon probable cause and with such assistance as may be required, may take the person into custody, or cause him to be taken into custody, and place him in a facility designated or approved by the executive director for a seventy-two-hour treatment and evaluation.
(b) Upon an affidavit sworn to or affirmed before a judge which relates sufficient facts to establish that a person appears to be mentally ill and, as a result of such mental illness, appears to be an imminent danger to others or to himself or appears to be gravely disabled, the court may order the person described in the affidavit to be taken into custody and placed in a facility designated or approved by the executive director for a seventy-two-hour treatment and evaluation. Whenever in this article a facility is to be designated or approved by the executive director, hospitals, if available, shall be approved or designated in each county before other facilities are approved or designated. Whenever in this article a facility is to be designated or approved by the executive director as a facility for a stated purpose and the facility to be designated or approved is a private facility, the consent of the private facility to the enforcement of standards set by the executive director shall be a prerequisite to the designation or approval.
(1.1) When a person is taken into custody pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, such person shall not be detained in a jail, lockup, or other place used for the confinement of persons charged with or convicted of penal offenses; except that such place may be used if no other suitable place of confinement for treatment and evaluation is readily available. In such situation the person shall be detained separately from those persons charged with or convicted of penal offenses and shall be held for a period not to exceed twenty-four hours, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, after which time he shall be transferred to a facility designated or approved by the executive director for a seventy-two-hour treatment and evaluation. When a person is taken into custody and confined pursuant to this subsection (1.1), such person shall be examined at least every twelve hours by a peace officer, nurse, or physician or by an appropriate staff professional of the nearest designated or approved mental health treatment facility to determine if the person is receiving appropriate care consistent with his mental condition.
(2) Such facility shall require an application in writing, stating the circumstances under which the person's condition was called to the attention of the officer, professional person, registered professional nurse, or licensed clinical social worker and further stating sufficient facts, obtained from his personal observations or obtained from others which he reasonably believes to be reliable, to establish that the person is mentally ill and, as a result of mental illness, an imminent danger to others or to himself or gravely disabled. The application shall indicate when the person was taken into custody and who brought the person's condition to the attention of the officer, professional person, registered professional nurse, or licensed clinical social worker. The application shall be kept on file by the seventy-two-hour treatment and evaluation facility for at least five years, and a copy shall be furnished to the person being evaluated.

...

(4) Each person admitted to a seventy-two-hour treatment and evaluation facility under the provisions of this article shall receive an evaluation as soon after he is admitted as possible and shall receive such treatment and care as his condition requires for the full period that he is held. Such person shall be released before seventy-two hours have elapsed if, in the opinion of the professional person in charge of the evaluation, the person no longer requires evaluation or treatment. Persons who have been detained for seventy-two-hour evaluation and treatment shall be released, referred for further care and treatment on a voluntary basis, or certified for treatment pursuant to section 27-10-107

27-10-107. Certification for short-term treatment.

(1) If a person detained for seventy-two hours under the provisions of section 27-10-105 or a respondent under court order for evaluation pursuant to section 27-10-106 has received an evaluation, he may be certified for not more than three months of short-term treatment under the following conditions:
(a) The professional staff of the agency or facility providing seventy-two-hour treatment and evaluation has analyzed the person's condition and has found the person is mentally ill and, as a result of mental illness, a danger to others or to himself or gravely disabled.
(b) The person has been advised of the availability of, but has not accepted, voluntary treatment; but, if reasonable grounds exist to believe that the person will not remain in a voluntary treatment program, his acceptance of voluntary treatment shall not preclude certification.
(c) The facility which will provide short-term treatment has been designated or approved by the executive director to provide such treatment.

A police officer has nothing to do with mental health "certification" beyond the 72-hour hold, and the remainder of this very long statute addresses some of the issues concerning HOW a person becomes certified for short-term treatment.

In my friend's case, he was certified for short-term treatment (which takes place after the initial 72-hour hold expires), but was released after a period of only a couple of days BEYOND the 72-hour hold. As such, he never attended a court hearing on the issue, or spoke to a lawyer about the situation. A judge may have signed his papers, but he never had the opportunity to address the situation, with or without legal counsel, in a court room. I believe the law provides any respondent with the opportunity to have a hearing, but he was released before the wheels were even put into motion on that issue.

Clearly this short term mental health certification was legally sufficient enough to cause my associate to be rejected during a NICS check while attempting to purchase a gun, but I've found little additional information concerning how/when this type of information is presented to NICS, or what process a person has to follow if they wish to appeal this legal disability! Furthermore, I believe that CBI (CO Bureau of Investigation) may also play a role in our gun-buy background checks

Obviously I'm not a lawyer, and I've already advised my friend to speak to one. But, the legal section of this forum is generally a good starting place when it comes to researching gun laws. I appreciate the information everyone has provided so far, and I am confident that someone on this forum knows something specific about the appeals process for individuals who are facing this type of situation!