And here I though we were talking about whether a person could lose his right to arms because of a detention under mental health law without having a hearing.
The two subjects are related if you would be willing to stop your high school debating schtick for a second and actually listen to what I am saying. Let me try to sum it up for you.
There are generally two processes involving an being involuntarily detained - a temporary/emergency detention and actually being involuntarily committed to a mental institution. Under previous Supreme Court rulings, you must have an adversarial hearing for the latter. The former does not require an adversarial hearing but must be a limited (temporary) detention.
When looking at the issue of whether you are disqualified under 922(g), courts have taken two different approaches. The First Circuit has said that because Congress also included the words "adjudicated mentally ill" they clearly intended to reach a broader group than just those who were committed via adversarial hearing. They further determined that it didn't matter that the state didn't intend to deprive someone of their firearms rights, it was what Congress said that mattered. This view is shared by ONE New York District Court, the Attorney General of Delaware and has been cited approvingly by the Sixth Circuit (even though the case in question was a temporary detention with adversarial hearing).
The Fifth and Eighth Circuit on the other hand take this approach: “[t]here is nothing in 18 U.S.C. § 922(h) [now § 922(g) ] which indicates an intent to prohibit the possession of firearms by persons who had been hospitalized for observation and examination, where they were found not to be mentally ill. The statute makes it clear that a commitment is required.” United States v. Hansel, 474 F.2d 1120, 1123 (8th Cir.1973)."
Under this approach, someone must be committed under a state statute intending to effect an involuntary commitment. If the state did not intend to reach that level, then the statute is not effective to deprive you of your Second Amendment rights.
This is relevant to your earlier comment because you don't need to individually examine every state statute in the Fifth and Eighth Circuits to determine how those states write their laws. We know that it has to be a commitment and we already know that requires at least an adversarial hearing. As a result, any state in the Fifth or Eighth Circuits would already be on the "good" list without further research necessary.
you were just ignorant of the policies of NY, Delaware and the "higher" First Circuit Court of Appeals impact on Maine, Massachusetts and Rhode Island that made your assertion of a hearing minimum standard wrong.
I was ignorant of those policies. I used to carry Glasers in my handgun too out of ignorance. Over the years I've learned quite a few things at THR and the inconsistencies in language (bad use and understanding of "involuntary commitment v. temporary detention") you have cited from random posts selected out of this several week long thread reflect that learning process.
Oh, I did see your "Caveat". I wondered why you didn't bother to check your assumptions before you blathered nonsense.
Because
usually THR is a friendly civil place for discussion and if I am wrong someone will point it out to me. I look at it more as a place to share what I know and learn what I don't rather than a place to keep score of all the times I am right and all the times someone else is wrong. I also realize we have a wide base of knowledgable members who are likely better informed than I am on any given subject and I don't have any reluctance to ask questions of them for fear I will be seen as less than all-knowing.
On that note Phil, I would like to say thanks for helping all of us, including me, to become better informed on this issue, though I still disagree with you about the utility of H.R. 2640.
