Denied PA LTCF, Florida?

[HSR47]

It's not just told to me that way, but it is also written in the Law that way. When the Law says "Is" it does also me "Will Be".

In the case of the U.S. Code you're citing though, that would make it have the effect of reading "Anyone who is and continues to be a user of illegal substances or...."

Thus, once the use has stopped, and assuming the person in question has not accrued any applicable convictions (and that he did not have any previously either), then it would appear that the meaning of the law doesn't really change.

The particular code you reference brings up another interesting legal question: It is my understanding that there are a handful of people still part of a federal study on medical marijuana that are still receiving their supply of marijuana from the government (presumably at taxpayer expense). My question is this: Does their use of marijuana, which they received from the federal government as part of that study, make it a felony for them to have contact with firearms?

Also, if you wish to challenge the Lawyer I first heard this form, see GunLawyer001....

After seeing some of the positions he has taken on this forum (Like the position he took in a recent thread regarding the merits of the character clause) I'm not sure that I trust his legal advice.

[God's Country]

I know being involuntarily committed to a mental institution (not sure about drug rehab) is a disqualifier, but that doesn't appear to be the case in this instance.

I'm wondering if he was 302'd myself.
How would a stint in a rehab come up in a background check unless a lot more transpired than the OP has relayed or is aware.

[zackattack784]

In the case of the U.S. Code you're citing though, that would make it have the effect of reading "Anyone who is and continues to be a user of illegal substances or...."

Thus, once the use has stopped, and assuming the person in question has not accrued any applicable convictions (and that he did not have any previously either), then it would appear that the meaning of the law doesn't really change.

The particular code you reference brings up another interesting legal question: It is my understanding that there are a handful of people still part of a federal study on medical marijuana that are still receiving their supply of marijuana from the government (presumably at taxpayer expense). My question is this: Does their use of marijuana, which they received from the federal government as part of that study, make it a felony for them to have contact with firearms?



After seeing some of the positions he has taken on this forum (Like the position he took in a recent thread regarding the merits of the character clause) I'm not sure that I trust his legal advice.

You have to keep in mind that Gunlawyer is quoting STATE law on a topic completely unrelated to this topic. Bybloshex also cited STATE law. I believe you guys are discussing FEDERAL law. The construction statute under Federal law may be different than under state law. Since you're discussing Federal law the federal construction statute prevails. That statute has been posted and doesn't include the past tense.

I'm wondering if he was 302'd myself.
How would a stint in a rehab come up in a background check unless a lot more transpired than the OP has relayed.

Wasn't there a post on here a few months back where a guy was denied a firearm purchase because he was involuntarily committed? It gets in the system somehow I guess. Do doctors submit anything?

[daustin]

Wasn't there a post on here a few months back where a guy was denied a firearm purchase because he was involuntarily committed? It gets in the system somehow I guess. Do doctors submit anything?

I had a family member in drug rehab a few years back and the doctor told us that when there is any kind of behavior that would incline them to believe the person is or may harm themselves or someone else, they are required to report it.

[God's Country]

Wasn't there a post on here a few months back where a guy was denied a firearm purchase because he was involuntarily committed? It gets in the system somehow I guess. Do doctors submit anything?

I presume you mean voluntarily? Otherwise it would make sense.
Regardless that thread escapes me, but it does seem to come up often.
I would not be surprised if pics flags all kinds of non disqualifying crap.

If the OP's brother could not leave on his own at any time IMO it wasn't voluntary. Like you said the OP needs to provide more info on the denial otherwise applying for a FL may be waste of time and money.

[zackattack784]

I presume you mean voluntarily? Otherwise it would make sense.
Regardless that thread escapes me, but it does seem to come up often.
I would not be surprised if pics flags all kinds of non disqualifying crap.

If the OP's brother could not leave on his own at any time IMO it wasn't voluntary. Like you said the OP needs to provide more info on the denial otherwise applying for a FL may be waste of time and money.

I'll try to find the thread but I think he went in voluntarily but it was flagged as an involuntary commitment. I'm not 100% on that though.

[HSR47]

Wasn't there a post on here a few months back where a guy was denied a firearm purchase because he was involuntarily committed? It gets in the system somehow I guess. Do doctors submit anything?

Involuntary commitment is precisely what is meant by "302" -- see here: http://www.alleghenycounty.us/dhs/commitment.aspx


The issue is that regardless of whether the commitment was voluntary or not, it may fall under the "Adjudicated mentally defective" clause of U.S. Code 18 section 922. See here: http://www.atf.gov/publications/down...f-i-3310-4.pdf



Given this, the real question that needs to be answered by the OP is PRECISELY WHY the denial occurred -- was it due to the character clause, or due to being "adjudicated mentally defective?" If it's an issue of character clause, then Florida (or similar) may be the answer; If it's an issue of the statue I cite above, then he'd need to jump through whatever judicial hoops are necessary to "restore" his rights under the second amendment, and once that is done, Florida may still be the answer -- Honestly though, if it's a federal issue, I'd probably just give PA another shot; 20 bucks on the counter and max 2 months on the clock, and you'll at least know if you even need to try to go through Florida.

[Chazman321]

There is nothing in the mental health act that says anything about rehab... If someone is on drugs or under the influence of alcohol, a doctor will not 302 them, at least in my county anyways... I pray for a quiet year, but I'm approaching my 40th 302 here pretty quickly.. lol

The only way the Sheriff would know about rehab, is if he checked the little box dealing with that area... People forget about the box??? lol Only other way would be character clause, if someone in the Sheriff's Dept. knew about his stay in rehab.

I know your brother wants to be open and honest with the Sheriff, but somethings he can't find out about unless he is told, know what I mean? The alcoholic sure doesn't say as such when renewing his carry license...

-Chaz

[1988 Olds]

Hey sorry guys I had work tonight so I didn't get to check the thread till now. Yes my brother has applied for his LTCF and was denied. I told him he needs to find the paperwork so I can post the reason so we can try to help him out. As far as I know he was never 302ed or involunterly commited. He was aloud to leave at any time but decided to stay to get helped. Now he did go to rehab 3 seperate times before he finally decided he needed to straighten his life. I can understand why his character may be of question. I guess my next question is what makes the FL permit easier to get then the PA LTCF. Why does everyone say the FL is a loophole, is it alot easier to get.

[D10]

If someone is on drugs or under the influence of alcohol, a doctor will not 302 them, at least in my county anyways...

Is it not so that only a family member can demand a 302? I was always under the assumption that if you have yourself admitted you are unable to 302 yourself............but I could be wrong.