Should I fear losing my guns from a involuntary commitment?

Status
Not open for further replies.

PILMAN

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2005
Messages
1,061
Location
Florida Panhandle
Back in September, I was arrested/detained (but not charged) under something called the baker act and taken directly to a crisis center in Florida involuntarily. My guns were confiscated and I was told I'd need to petition the courts to get them back.

I was taken in handcuffs to the crisis center then to the hospital for kidney issues and transferred back and held for 72 hours.

After being released I called the police department asking to get my firearms back and they gave me a big run around and said I would have to contact a lawyer.

Eventually they decided to release them and I didn't need a lawyer (in January) because I wasn't charged with anything.

I don't know if this "baker act" is on any records but I was told by many on officer forums that I could never become law enforcement because MEPS would pick it up and that getting into military would be very difficult without some sort of waiver. Others are saying a baker act doesn't even show up in records and is not considered an arrest. I'm not sure if it classes as a involuntary commitment but I was held for 72 hours and given a psychological review and I was given anti anxiety medication and medication for my kidneys.

I'm worried this could somehow affect me under federal gun laws or in the future? Does anyone know?
 
http://www.clerk.co.okeechobee.fl.us/Baker_act.htm

An involuntary Baker Act is when a person is taken to a receiving facility for involuntary examination when there is reason to believe that he or she is mentally ill and because of his or her mental illness, the person has refused voluntary examination; the person is unable to determine for himself or herself whether examination is necessary and without care or treatment, the person is likely to suffer from neglect or refuse to care for himself or herself and such refusal could pose a threat of harm to his or her well being; and there is a substantial likelihood that without care or treatment, the person will cause serious bodily harm to himself, herself or others in the near future as evidenced by recent behavior.



Well according to the law some one reported you. You need to talk to a lawyer and find out who turned you in.
 
They won't reveal that information but I did get my guns back, but some on the legal forums are claiming that the police weren't supposed to give them back because it is considered involuntary?
 
An interesting question. Some searching brought up this. Emphasis added.

http://www.myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/Opinions/C12EDF88F39CBC968525754B00721BB3

Bill McCollum said:
Number: AGO 2009-04
Date: January 27, 2009
Subject: Firearms, return under Baker Act

The Honorable Frank McKeithen
Sheriff, Bay County
3421 North Highway 77
Panama City, Florida 32405

RE: BAKER ACT – FIREARMS – LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES – MENTAL HEALTH – confiscation and return of firearms by law enforcement agencies when firearm owner subject to Baker Act evaluation. Part I, Ch. 394, Fla. Stat.

Dear Sheriff McKeithen:

You have asked for my opinion on substantially the following question:

Is the Sheriff of Bay County required to return firearms that have been confiscated from persons who are sent for evaluation under Florida's Baker Act?

In sum:

In the absence of an arrest and criminal charge against the person sent for evaluation under Florida's Baker Act, the Sheriff of Bay County may not retain firearms confiscated from such persons and retained by that office.


According to your letter, officers from the Bay County Sheriff's Office are frequently dispatched to calls involving an individual who threatens suicide or behaves in a manner that results in the person being sent for evaluation under Florida's Baker Act, Part I, Chapter 394, Florida Statutes. These individuals frequently possess firearms which are taken into custody by the officer who responds to the call. You are concerned that when these individuals are released following mental evaluation and no further official action is taken, these weapons are returned.

Part I, Chapter 394, Florida Statutes, is the Florida Mental Health Act, also known as the Baker Act.[1] The Florida Legislature has expressed its intent with regard to the provisions of the Baker Act as follows:

"It is the intent of the Legislature to authorize and direct the Department of Children and Family Services to evaluate, research, plan, and recommend to the Governor and the Legislature programs designed to reduce the occurrence, severity, duration, and disabling aspects of mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders. It is the intent of the Legislature that treatment programs for such disorders shall include, but not be limited to, comprehensive health, social, educational, and rehabilitative services to persons requiring intensive short-term and continued treatment in order to encourage them to assume responsibility for their treatment and recovery. It is intended that such persons be provided with emergency service and temporary detention for evaluation when required; that they be admitted to treatment facilities on a voluntary basis when extended or continuing care is needed and unavailable in the community; that involuntary placement be provided only when expert evaluation determines that it is necessary; that any involuntary treatment or examination be accomplished in a setting which is clinically appropriate and most likely to facilitate the person's return to the community as soon as possible; and that individual dignity and human rights be guaranteed to all persons who are admitted to mental health facilities or who are being held under s. 394.463. It is the further intent of the Legislature that the least restrictive means of intervention be employed based on the individual needs of each person, within the scope of available services. It is the policy of this state that the use of restraint and seclusion on clients is justified only as an emergency safety measure to be used in response to imminent danger to the client or others. It is, therefore, the intent of the Legislature to achieve an ongoing reduction in the use of restraint and seclusion in programs and facilities serving persons with mental illness."

The act provides for voluntary or involuntary examination and treatment of mentally ill persons. Pursuant to section 394.463(1), Florida Statutes, a person may be taken to a receiving facility[2] for involuntary examination if there is reason to believe that he or she is mentally ill and because of that mental illness has refused voluntary examination or is unable to determine for himself or herself whether examination is necessary. A determination must be made that, without care or treatment, the person is likely to suffer from neglect or refuse to care for himself or herself or that there is substantial likelihood that without care or treatment, serious bodily harm to that person or others may result in the near future as evidenced by recent behavior.[3]

A relevant aspect of Florida's Baker Act is its strong position that those who suffer from mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders should not, on the basis of their mental health, be treated as criminals. The act specifically requires that procedures utilized for criminals or those accused of crime "shall not be used in connection with persons who have a mental illness, except for the protection of the patient or others."[4] The act provides that a person who is being treated for mental illness shall not be deprived of any constitutional rights.[5] However, if the person is adjudicated incapacitated, his or her rights "may be limited to the same extent the rights of any incapacitated person are limited by law."[6] Thus, section 394.458, Florida Statutes, provides that it is unlawful to "introduce into or upon the grounds of [a hospital providing mental health services under the Baker Act], or to take or attempt to take or send therefrom" any firearms or deadly weapons.[7]

With regard to the return of personal effects of patients in a facility, section 394.459(6), Florida Statutes, provides in part:

"A patient's right to the possession of his or her clothing and personal effects shall be respected. The facility may take temporary custody of such effects when required for medical and safety reasons. . . . All of a patient's clothing and personal effects held by the facility shall be returned to the patient immediately upon the discharge or transfer of the patient from the facility, unless such return would be detrimental to the patient. If personal effects are not returned to the patient, the reason must be documented in the clinical record along with the disposition of the clothing and personal effects, which may be given instead to the patient's guardian, guardian advocate, or representative."

Thus, those patients who are admitted to a facility under the Baker Act may have their personal effects retained if a determination is made that the return would be detrimental to the patient. No similar provision in the Baker Act authorizes a law enforcement agency to retain custody of personal property such as firearms of those discharged after evaluation pursuant to Part I, Chapter 394, Florida Statutes.

This office has issued a number of Attorney General Opinions over the years relating to various aspects of the Baker Act including the duties and responsibilities of law enforcement officers under the provisions of the act.[8] However, a review of Part I, Chapter 394, Florida Statutes, does not reveal any statement providing direction to law enforcement regarding the disposition of weapons and firearms confiscated from persons being treated under the act. The Baker Act does provide that if a person is arrested and charged with a felony and it appears that the person comes within the statutory guidelines for involuntary examination or placement under the Mental Health Act, "such person shall first be processed in the same manner as any other criminal suspect."[9] Thus, to the extent weapons could be confiscated and retained when taken from other felony suspects, firearms confiscated from felons also subject to the Baker Act would be subject to the same treatment. The applicability of this provision depends on the person being arrested and charged with a felony and would not be helpful in the situations you have described which do not involve an arrest.

Several other statutes provide for the disposition of firearms that have been confiscated under various provisions of state law. Section 933.14(3), Florida Statutes, provides that:

"No pistol or firearm taken by any officer with a search warrant or without a search warrant upon a view by the officer of a breach of the peace shall be returned except pursuant to an order of a trial court judge."

In addition, section 790.08, Florida Statutes, provides authority for law enforcement officers to take possession of weapons and firearms found upon persons arrested for various crimes. Again, each of these statutes requires the individual to be charged with a criminal offense and, as the Baker Act makes clear, Baker Act proceedings are not criminal proceedings.[10]

In sum, it is my opinion that in the absence of an arrest and criminal charge against the person sent for evaluation under Florida's Baker Act, the Sheriff of Bay County may not retain firearms confiscated from such persons and retained by that office.
You may wish to suggest to your local legislative delegation that this issue is problematical for local law enforcement and work with them to craft amendatory legislation to address these matters.

Sincerely,

Bill McCollum
Attorney General

BM/tgh

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

[1] See s. 394.451, Fla. Stat., providing the short title for the act.

[2] See s. 394.455(32), Fla. Stat., for a definition of a treatment facility.

[3] Section 394.463(1), Fla. Stat.

[4] See s. 394.459(1), Fla. Stat.

[5] Id. And see s. 8, Art. I, Fla. Const., providing the right of the citizens of Florida to keep and bear arms.

[6] Section 394.459(1), Fla. Stat.

[7] Section 394.458(1)(a)3., Fla. Stat. And see s. 394.458(2), Fla. Stat., making violations of this provision a felony of the third degree.

[8] See, e.g., Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 92-46 (1992) and other Attorney General Opinions construing provisions of the Baker Act available at www.myfloridalegal.com.

[9] Section 394.462(1)(g), Fla. Stat.

[10] And see s. 394.459(1), Fla. Stat., providing the rights of patients under the Baker Act.
 
You gotta wonder how this hsitory would be viewed were you to move to another state, Pilman.

Jim H.
 
Instructions for 11c from ATF Form 4473:

Committed to a Mental Institution: A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term includes commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution.

By ATF definition, you shouldn't have a problem, but that doesn't mean you won't.
 
Sounds like there will be questions asked for some time.

I'd have (and carry to interviews or other important meetings) documents that answer those questions.

I was arrested as a minor for illegal possession of a firearm. Since then I've done 28 years as a federal lawman of some form or other. Maybe that was the penalty?
 
As a paramedic I see A LOT of Baker acts. In order to be "Baker Acted," you must do or say something in the presence of a Doctor, LEO, or other health care person that leads them to believe that you are in imminent danger of harming themselves or someone else. This isn't something that happens because a PO'ed ex-girlfriend reports you.

Witnesses aren't good enough, a suicide note might be. Self inflicted injuries are good enough (like cutting) to get you down there, as well.

The second element of a Baker Act is that you have to refuse care. I always give people several chances before we do it, as in: "You have two choices here. You can either come with me to the hospital voluntarily, where you will be treated and released in an hour or two, or you can come with me as a Baker Act, and you will be held for 72 hours for psychiatric evaluation. Either way, you are going to the hospital." Most people get it, and go on their own.

They do not count as an arrest. As far as I know, they don't keep a statewide record of it (although the PD, hospital, and fire department will keep a record of it under state law, but the fire dept and hospital are held private by Federal Law) and it will not effect your ability to possess firearms or ammunition.
 
I would say because you were not committed, you should not have issue but that does not mean you won't. In NC there is a wide amount of discretion given to the county sheriff on permits and if he/she is not gun friendly, you may find yourself in trouble.

BTW, Do you have any ex-wives/girlfriends who do not like you? I have a friend whose estranged husband has done this same thing to her in NC about 3 times. It has caused severe distress and cost her a job already.

On the flip side, you need to consider if you were taking any actions that could be interpreted as you needing this type of call. There may be a misguiding but caring person who is worried about you.

I would say, IF it happens again, get an attorney and see what options you have to fight against those. If someone is using the orders abusively, I am not sure what options you have (in NC there are few), but you may be able to get some type of injunction to block them in the future.

edit: divemedic....well that answers my thought...
 
Last edited:
After being released I called the police department asking to get my firearms back and they gave me a big run around and said I would have to contact a lawyer.

I would follow the advice given to you by the Police Department, and that is highly unusual from me to say. Internet answers will just get you info from "non-experts" that know how to use Google, Lawyers know how to read and interpret the law, that will get you accurate answers. It has been accurately said "You get what you pay for" Free advise is just that.
 
You were not ruled mentally incompetent by a judge. I don't think you have anything to fear unless a comprehensive and intrusive health care bill is passed and those records are used against gun owners.
 
Divemedic, Let me see if I understand this. The state you are in, if I refuse medical treatment by you you can have me commited for 72 hours if you believe my life maybe in danger from refusing said medial treatment?
 
I would keep a copy of the posted Attorney General's letter in a file. You never know when you'll need it again and it may sway another state's bureaucracy.
 
redloki...I understand your fear there but this rule, IF (and that is a huge IF), not abused this would give authorities the chance to get these wacked out nutjobs help before the go to a school and start shooting up the place.

Course when abused this would be a very big power for someone to wield against another. A good way to ruin a life.
 
I would like to know why the 72-hour hold was necessitated in the first place, sounds to me as though we're talking about a suicide attempt, here in Wisconsin or Minnesota you may be held involuntarily(72-hour hold)pending a hearing of competence in front of a judge or magistrate.
I've served many of them over the years, usually they result in an agreement to voluntarily submit to treatment(or else).
Can you say as to why it was served?
 
Divemedic, Let me see if I understand this. The state you are in, if I refuse medical treatment by you you can have me commited for 72 hours if you believe my life maybe in danger from refusing said medial treatment?

Not like you think, and this is the case in every US state, AFAIK.

Let me set it up for you:

I go to your home, and you have deep lacerations on your wrists that are consistent with a suicide attempt, and you tell me that you did it because the voices in your head told you to, I absolutely will Baker Act you.

If your girlfriend calls and tells me you tried to commit suicide because the two of you got in a fight, I probably won't, unless I also find an empty pill bottle that should still have 30 pills in it because it was prescribed yesterday.

This sort of thing isn't done because you won't go to the hospital for the flu. I have to have a reasonable belief that you are an active harm to yourself or others.

Edited to add: The procedure is as follows: I determine that the person meets the criteria for a Baker Act, and contact dispatch, requesting a LEO to the scene. The LEO follows me to the hospital and signs the paperwork. Here is the statute:

394.463 Involuntary examination.--

(1) CRITERIA.--A person may be taken to a receiving facility for involuntary examination if there is reason to believe that the person has a mental illness and because of his or her mental illness:

(a)1. The person has refused voluntary examination after conscientious explanation and disclosure of the purpose of the examination; or

2. The person is unable to determine for himself or herself whether examination is necessary; and

(b)1. Without care or treatment, the person is likely to suffer from neglect or refuse to care for himself or herself; such neglect or refusal poses a real and present threat of substantial harm to his or her well-being; and it is not apparent that such harm may be avoided through the help of willing family members or friends or the provision of other services; or

2. There is a substantial likelihood that without care or treatment the person will cause serious bodily harm to himself or herself or others in the near future, as evidenced by recent behavior.
 
Last edited:
I can't talk about the specifics, I was just wondering if it would affect me in the future or if I moved to another state, I now have possession of my firearms but I haven't attempted to buy any lately.
 
I hope you sucessfully deal with everything you face in life, friend. This episode seems to have worked itself out well enough. Don't have another. This is a wake up call to do whatever it takes to make your life solid, safe, secure and happy. We're behind you all the way.
 
It doesnt appear to be a reason to effect firearm ownership, but a concealed carry permit/license can be turned down by the sheriff for something such as this (a friend has a single charge in his past for possesion of a small amount of M-jane, this was many years ago, he tried to get a CC permit and was turned down). In your state it may or may not effect that either.
 
I've actually had a similar experience recently. I was arrested and brought to a mental health complex for observation (for only six hours though). All charges were dropped, but not before the police had taken all of my firearms.

Unlike you, I actually had to go through with the petition, even though the police captain was eager to give my stuff back without such a hassle. A bunch of paperwork and forms plus six trips to the courthouse landed me a court date where I was denied the return of my firearms. So count yourself a lucky man for actually getting your stuff back.

Just last week I bought a new handgun without any issues what so ever, so I think you're good to go in that regard.
 
In Louisana, i don't think its called the Baker Act, but it works just as divemedic has already said.

If you are unable to care for yourself, a danger to yourself or others you can be taken to the hospital against your will. If you are of sound mind, and just don't want medical care, even if I disagree with your decision I cant force you to go. If you are UNABLE to care for yourself due to a psychiatric problem or you are suicidal or homicidal I can, and will take you in to the hospital.

this also applies to people who are unable to make their own medical decisions, due to intoxication, etc. that is when I have to use it most often. People who are intoxicated are not able to legally refuse medical care in Louisiana, sometimes medical control will allow it if they have a sober friend to look after them, but often they have to go. You would be surprised how many people can't understand this, even after a lengthy explanation and instead of a peaceful trip to the hospital, they have to be wrestled onto a board and physically restrained.
 
You shouldn't have to worry. Involuntary commitment is indefinate to mostly permanent. That being said you were taken in for evaluation. Something along the same lines has happened to me, but I havn't lost my rights. You would have to go before a judge and be found mentally incompetant to do so.
 
The state you are in, if I refuse medical treatment by you you can have me commited for 72 hours if you believe my life maybe in danger from refusing said medial treatment?

Just so everybody's clear: The law mandates this. So, if you are visiting your GP and you say to her, "Doc, I'm really depressed and I'm pretty sure I'm going to kill myself," the physician will have little choice but to Baker Act you because she risks losing her license if she doesn't. Similar rules apply to threats to harm others.

In this case, because it was only an evaluation, you should be able to get your property back and CHL should be OK, although you may have an extra hoop to jump through.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top