Small victory regarding red flag / mental issues

[Great-Kazoo]

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-p...hZV1Q-aCbg8XHw



The case, which challenged a ban on gun possession that the federal government was imposing against the plaintiff and other individuals under 18 U.S.C. ? 922(g)(4), was brought by attorneys Joshua Prince and Adam Kraut, FPC?s Director of Legal Strategy.
?Section 302 of [Pennsylvania?s Mental Health Procedures Act, or ?MHPA?] does not meet 18 U.S.C. ? 922(g)(4)?s permanent restriction on an individual?s ability to acquire, possess, or use a firearm,? the Court held. ?While Section 302 . . . may be enough to justify an involuntary examination and treatment, the nature of [] its non-adversarial ex parte procedure without notice, or opportunity to present evidence, does not constitute an ?adjudication? under Section 922(g)(4); nor does Section 302?s 120-hour maximum ?involuntary emergency examination and treatment? constitute a ?commitment to a mental institution? under Section 922(g)(4).?
Ex parte proceedings, where usually only one side is present or heard by a court, are a major issue in the current nationwide debate over so-called ?red flag? laws.
The court ruling continued, ?Mr. Wilborn?s brief involuntary emergency examination and treatment under Section 302 of the MHPA does not trigger [18 U.S.C.] Section 922(g)(4) because Mr. Wilborn was never ?adjudicated as a mental defective? or ?committed to a mental institution.?? Thus, it says, the Court finds ?that the ex parte decision by a single physician following a Section 302 examination is insufficient to meet the requirements to permanently prohibit Mr. Wilborn from legally acquiring, possessing, or using a firearm under 18 U.S.C. ? 922(g)(4).?

[Eric P]

Please translate from legalese bull to English.

[Skip]

Yes good news and again why I find the current, pre-ERPO, involuntary commitment standard a very fair way of dealing with it. That standard prevented this person from losing his firearm rights for life because a lower evidentiary standard was applied that granted a hold.

If the gov wants to abuse this standard, they have to find a lot of beds for gun owners.

But ERPO lets them do this without any evidence and any requirement to address the subject.

[Bailey Guns]

Please translate from legalese bull to English.

The worry was/is, someone taken into custody under these ERPO laws would be considered as adjudicated mentally deficient. If that were the case, the person would be ineligible to own/possess firearms...thus they wouldn't get back guns stolen confiscated by police.

The court basically said the circumstances around the defendant's arrest/mental observation didn't amount to "adjudicated mentally defective".

[Rucker61]

The worry was/is, someone taken into custody under these ERPO laws would be considered as adjudicated mentally deficient. If that were the case, the person would be ineligible to own/possess firearms...thus they wouldn't get back guns stolen confiscated by police.

The court basically said the circumstances around the defendant's arrest/mental observation didn't amount to "adjudicated mentally defective".

And this is good news.