10-10-2015, 10:00 AM
The Current U.S. Regulation Regarding Mental Illness
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has issued regulations that define an “adjudication” as a “determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person is, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease: (1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or (2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.” This includes a finding of insanity or incompetency in a criminal case.
“Committed to a mental institution” is defined as a “formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, or other lawful authority.” The definition makes clear that “the term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission.”
-----------------------
The Supreme Court has held that an involuntary commitment is a serious deprivation of liberty that requires due process of law under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
A person cannot be federally disqualified from owning a gun based only on a psychiatrist’s diagnosis, a doctor’s referral, or the opinion of a law enforcement officer, let alone based on getting a drug prescription or seeking mental health treatment. Doing so might discourage troubled people from getting the help they need, even those with conditions that bear no increased risk of violence.
If a person was banned from legally purchasing a gun based on the current regulations, and the condition for which they were banned has been resolved, I think that too should be reported in the NICS system so the record can be updated.
As for preventing mentally ill persons that fall under current regulations from getting their hands on guns via family members or friends, it's too bad we can't regulate common sense. I have mixed feelings about what, if any, federal governmental intervention should be taken to address that problem.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has issued regulations that define an “adjudication” as a “determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person is, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease: (1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or (2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.” This includes a finding of insanity or incompetency in a criminal case.
“Committed to a mental institution” is defined as a “formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, or other lawful authority.” The definition makes clear that “the term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission.”
-----------------------
The Supreme Court has held that an involuntary commitment is a serious deprivation of liberty that requires due process of law under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
A person cannot be federally disqualified from owning a gun based only on a psychiatrist’s diagnosis, a doctor’s referral, or the opinion of a law enforcement officer, let alone based on getting a drug prescription or seeking mental health treatment. Doing so might discourage troubled people from getting the help they need, even those with conditions that bear no increased risk of violence.
If a person was banned from legally purchasing a gun based on the current regulations, and the condition for which they were banned has been resolved, I think that too should be reported in the NICS system so the record can be updated.
As for preventing mentally ill persons that fall under current regulations from getting their hands on guns via family members or friends, it's too bad we can't regulate common sense. I have mixed feelings about what, if any, federal governmental intervention should be taken to address that problem.