I don’t get what decision Special Justice made in this case. They decided not to involuntarily commit someone?
Before anyone rushes to encourage more involuntary commitment, consider that the reason we don't commit as many people now is that it was used inappropriately in the past. Also, note how in the good ol' USSR, etc., it was really interesting how political dissidents were committed "for their own good"...do we really want our gun rights taken away by liberalizing involuntary commitment?