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 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Challenge to new Connecticut laws | Main | An interesting question »

Counter to Bloomberg media blitz against Sen. Jeff Flake

Posted by David Hardy · 26 May 2013 05:55 PM

At Factcheck.org. The Bloomberg claim is that Flake said he supported background checks, then voted against expanding them. Flake's response is that he supported "strengthening" background checks, i.e., including more data, not that he supported broadening them.

A strange thing: Flake supported a rival bill, which Bloomberg's gang criticizes because it would not have included as a bar mental commitments made by doctors rather than judges. I can't think of any State where a real commitment is made by doctors acting alone, and doubt that would be constitutional. Doctors can make a temporary commitment for observation, but that's never been a bar to firearms possession if things ended there.

1 Comment | Leave a comment

Jonathan Goldstein | May 26, 2013 8:16 PM | Reply

In Pennsylvania, a mental health professional can order a 302 commitment - temporarily holding someone for 72 hours. BATFE treats that temporary commitment as an adjudication of mental defectiveness and therefore as a prohibition on firearms possession.

Until 2008, BATFE didn't treat 302 commitments that way, but now they do. Josh Prince covers this on his blog:

http://blog.princelaw.com/2013/02/02/pennsylvania-state-police-to-share-mental-health-records-with-federal-bureau-of-investigation/

Leave a comment