IIRC there's 20,000 listed mental illnesses (almost matching the number of guns laws. Hey what a coincidence). And just who is to decide if YOU have one of those 20,000 'mental illnesses? Some loony-tunes psychiatrist with an Oedipus complex who sleeps in his moma's nightie?
A couple years back Dubya pushed for Federal 'mental health screening' of all new mothers. I don't think it went anywhere but that was a baaaad idea. A similar mental health screening law almost passed in IL, until We The People found out and raised hell. My own State Rep was the sponsor and even SHE didn't want it passed after the mental health experts got their hands on on it and changed the thing 180o.Naturally I don't want a Charlie Manson walking around armed to the teeth, BUT I sure as hell don't want some fruity pedophile 'psychiatrist' determining whom should have a firearm.When I talked to her after the final bill was ready, I asked what would happen in a household where a mother was found to have an 'illness' and there were Firearms leagly owned by another - wouldn't they be removed by law? She paused for a moment and said, "yes I believe so, but I never thought of that". I also asked if a mother 'failed' this test wouldn't she be BANNED for life from owning a gun. Again she answered yes and again the, 'gee I never thought of that'.
So there you have it. The law of unintended consequences strikes once more. What starts out as a 'feel good' law to 'help' young mothers who may be 'depressed', goes immediately into infringement of 2nd Amendment rights.
18USC922(g)(4) refers to ajudicated a danger to self, or others, or invonluntarily committed as such. It does not refer to any abitrary BS. The law refers to court rulings, which almost allways come as a result of a criminal complaint. The law does not refer to anything other than that.