Well, here is an interesting court case dilineating some of the problems, one being the court didn’t agree with the ATF’s definintion of “mentally defective”, but interestingly that being committed to outpatient treatment was the same as involuntary commitment (under Iowa law anyway). Just points out the fact that the law and interpretation of it is in flux and that the ATF is not the controlling legal authority on legal definitions, the courts are.
Selected Developments from January / February 2007 Issue
Civil Mental Disability Law
Seizure of Firearms; Outpatient Treatment
An Iowa federal court granted the U.S. government’s motion to destroy the firearms and ammunition of a man with a long history of mental illness, finding as a matter of first impression that outpatient treatment constitutes “commitment to a mental institution” for purposes of the federal firearms statute, 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(4). United States v. B.H., 2006 WL 3531418.
B.H., a 63-year-old man with a long history of schizophrenia, collects firearms and ammunition. In September 2002, B.H. was involuntarily committed to outpatient treatment. State law enforcement officers executed a search warrant and seized 12 handguns, eight long guns, and thousands of rounds of ammunition from B.H.’s home. In April 2003, B.H. was discharged from outpatient commitment. In November, a state court ordered the law enforcement officials to return the firearms and ammunition to B.H. The federal government filed a complaint in district court, asking the court to declare the seized items contraband as to B.H., pursuant to §922(g)(4), which prohibits a person who was been “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to a mental institution” from possessing firearms or ammunition.
The district court granted the government’s motion. First, the court found that B.H. was not “adjudicated as a mental defective.” The Eighth Circuit has defined a “mental defective” as “a person who has never possessed a normal degree of intellectual capacity.” United States v. Hansel, 474 F.2d 1120 (8th Cir. 1973). The state referee’s finding that B.H. was “seriously mentally impaired” at the time of the commitment hearing did not amount to a finding that B.H. “never possessed a normal degree of intellectual capacity.” Rather, the treating physician’s report indicated that B.H. had developed schizophrenia in the 1960s and has intermittently battled the condition since that time.
The government urged the court to adopt a broader definition of “mental defective,” relying on a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) regulation that defines “adjudicated as a mental defective” as “a determination by a court that a person, as a result of a mental illness, condition or disease (1) is a danger to himself or others; or (2) lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.” 27 C.F.R. §478.11. A Michigan federal court had declined to follow Hansel and, instead, adopted the ATF’s regulation. United States v. Vertz, 102 F. Supp. 2d 787 (W.D. Mich. 2000), aff’d on other grounds, 40 Fed. Appx. 69 (6th Cir. 2002), 26 MPDLR 795. Unlike the district court in Vertz, the court here is bound to follow Hansel, so long as it is not inconsistent with U.S. Supreme Court precedent. The court recognized some tension between Hansel and the Supreme Court’s holding in Dickerson v. New Banner Inst., Inc., 460 U.S. 103 (1983), but did not find the two cases inconsistent. In Dickerson, the Court stated that 18 U.S.C. §921 et seq. has a “broad prophylactic purpose.” The court here noted that the Court’s reference was a general remark about the statute, and that the Court did not define “mental defective.”
Second, the court ruled that outpatient treatment may constitute “commitment to a mental institution” for purposes of the federal firearms statute. Turning to the plain meaning of the statutory language, the court noted that the statute only requires commitment to, not in, a mental institution. 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(4). Under Iowa law, a formal order of commitment is a prerequisite to outpatient treatment, outpatient treatment continues only while the patient is under such an order, and the treatment does not end absent a court order terminating the commitment. See Iowa Code §229.13.
http://www.abanet.org/disability/publications/lawreporter/caselaw.shtml
Thanks. State law is different, but that case shows how the ATF considers it. If you just go in yourself, w/o the court’s involvemnet, fed law explicitly says that is not a disability for purposes of the fed firearms law. Sorry about post 19. I couldn’t read “Godbly”, even when she was told to print her name, and left that dangling as “God”.