Quote Originally Posted by Rucker61 View Post
The wording of 18 USC 922g is "who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution". Whether or not he lied on the Form 4473 he certainly should have had membership in the NICS naughty boy list.
"Adjudicated" Implying the lawful authority on 4473. Again, I think that is fair. But I don't know of any process to adjudicate someone mentally defective yet not commit them. I do know the courts can appoint POAs for people deemed incapable in certain respects but that is not a declaration of mental defect/illness.

The overreach of Obama trying to make prohibited persons out of folks with financial POAs (elderly) was illegal and immoral (IMHO), for example. Just because and elderly person can't manage their finances doesn't mean they should be disarmed if living alone and competent enough to use a firearm for defense. That was actually another head scratcher for me... If someone isn't competent they probably shouldn't be living alone (I've had elderly family in this situation so I know there are in fact people who shouldn't be on their own).

But maybe a broader POA/ward of the state should make a prohibited person? And if so, for life?

How should he have had membership in this case?

I've read about the 911 calls, interaction with LE, and arguing with his mom. Does that on its own rise to the level of mental defect?