Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.3
Site Design by Sekimori

« Glenn Reynolds' take on Parker | Main | ATF from the inside »

Definition of "committed"

Posted by David Hardy · 29 September 2007 04:14 PM

Clayton Cramer has an interesting posting relating to an article in Journ. of the American Academy of Psychiatry Law. The gist of it is that the cases are clear that an involuntary committment can create prohibited status under GCA 68, they're all over the place beyond that point. Some say that a temporary emergency committment that doesn't lead to a formal committment proceeding is no bar to gun ownership. Others say that a procedure where the committment order is issued by two physicians, without judicial findings, is enough.

Going to the article he cites, indeed it is a mess, beyond the principle that if a committment is for observation, without subsequent finding that the person is indeed insane, he's probably in the clear.

At the level of state law, it's even worse. In four states, voluntary committment, or diagnosis without committment, can be a bar. In California, just being given a 72 hour committment for observation is a bar, altho it ends after five years. Four states have no bar based on psychiatric findings at all.

· prohibitted persons

5 Comments | Leave a comment

gattsuru | September 29, 2007 6:05 PM | Reply

And existing federal law itself only requires that any lawful authority consider you to be risky for a report to be added to the NICS, although until hr2460 passes almost all agencies do not do so unless asked by the Attorney General.

HR2460 will at least give an out once the records are in, if you don't mind proving that a negative to the agency that put your name in the first place.

Jim W | September 29, 2007 10:37 PM | Reply

What happened to the idea of maybe a trial with a jury and confronting witnesses and all that before we take away people's rights?

I thought doctors weren't supposed to be in the adjudication business. They make great expert witnesses, but the judicial process doesn't end if the prosecution can find two expert witnesses to testify.

30yearprof | September 30, 2007 8:04 AM | Reply

Until the NRA and the ACLU agree on a fair standard and process for "committment" and begin to get every state to enact that process, HR 2460 just makes a VERY BAD system more efficient.

NRA seems oblivious to the real problem -- lack of appropriate standards and procedure AT THE STATE LEVEL.

"Thanks NRA. The trains going to the camps now run on time."

gattsuru | September 30, 2007 10:07 AM | Reply

HR2460 doesn't talk about states. It requires records from agencies and departments; the state definitions may really not matter much.

While I don't like the part where four states will strip a right away from you because of a singe shrink's diagnosis (especially given conditions like Asperger's, which would not impair the ability to safely own a gun), the Federal folk really can't deal with those issues.

The problem with HR2460 is that it leaves the federal law issue alone. 18 USC 922 (d)(4) would be unconstitutionally vague if it weren't a firearms law; as long as it's up to the federal courts to randomly pick what is and isn't insane, giving incentives for mental health records is going to result in a tsunami of all mental health records. They can afford to force the peons to go to court and prove that they're innocent, or go to a panel and prove that they're not risky.

straightarrow | September 30, 2007 10:47 PM | Reply

It is really very simple. There is no valid argument otherwise. If you don't want the power abused, do not give them the power.

Judge this law based upon the potential harm when improperly applied, because that occurrence is as sure as the sun revealing itself in the east each morning.

One of the most corrupt politicians in our history and former POTUS, Lyndon B. Johnson, understood this and remarked so publicly.

Human behavior has not appreciably improved since that time or the eons before, but politicians behavior has appreciably and measurably deteriorated. H.R. 2640 is a national tragedy waiting in the wings.

Leave a comment