March toward absurdity not just for the crazy: a story of PICS denial

[MDJschool]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...36473985006009
Little v. Pennsylvania State Police, Pa. Cmwlth. August 2011

Under 18 USC 922(g)(4), for a simple assault conviction that would not otherwise be prohibiting, deferring sentencing and committing someone for evaluations (where treatment is not even actually required) and such treatment may end prior to sentencing, a person is banned from firearms. In this fucked up world of 'civil disabilities' that oppose themselves to 'punishment' for the sole purpose of avoiding constitituional constraints, I'm not even certain the result here could ever be vacated by future court action. Tack on that there is no funding for the federal disability relief program and the circuit courts have either said "oh well, there's no remedy" or "well you can take it to the courts but we'll make it even harder to deal with than it already would have been under statute", and that 18 Pa.C.S. secs. 6105, 6105.1, and 6123 appear to provide no relief, we have just discovered one of many perfect ways to permanantly disarm Pennsylvanians. I mean, what protections are there prior to a commitment in aid of sentencing? What protections are there in relief?

[RobW]

I hear what you are saying, and it seems that this "loophole" is quite the gotcha clause. If abused by a rabidly anti-gun prosecutor (and aren't they all) this would be a method to systematically disarm anyone brought before him for anything.

That said, in the specific example it would seem that "don't push your mother in law down a flight of stairs" is a reasonable remedy! The guy is a douche, no?

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...36473985006009
Little v. Pennsylvania State Police, Pa. Cmwlth. August 2011

Under 18 USC 922(g)(4), for a simple assault conviction that would not otherwise be prohibiting, deferring sentencing and committing someone for evaluations (where treatment is not even actually required) and such treatment may end prior to sentencing, a person is banned from firearms. In this fucked up world of 'civil disabilities' that oppose themselves to 'punishment' for the sole purpose of avoiding constitituional constraints, I'm not even certain the result here could ever be vacated by future court action. Tack on that there is no funding for the federal disability relief program and the circuit courts have either said "oh well, there's no remedy" or "well you can take it to the courts but we'll make it even harder to deal with than it already would have been under statute", and that 18 Pa.C.S. secs. 6105, 6105.1, and 6123 appear to provide no relief, we have just discovered one of many perfect ways to permanantly disarm Pennsylvanians. I mean, what protections are there prior to a commitment in aid of sentencing? What protections are there in relief?

[MDJschool]

That said, in the specific example it would seem that "don't push your mother in law down a flight of stairs" is a reasonable remedy! The guy is a douche, no?

Finding ways to flout Pa. Const. art. I, secs. 1, 21, and 25 is bad enough as it is, if we expect to be a self-determinant people, anyway. I don't want to see that taken further by having one branch make up for the perceived failures of another (here that might be making more commitments than allowed by law prohibiting simply because prosecutors are failing to charge aggravated assaults instead of simple assaults, the latter which are not prohibiting.) Of course, here it could also so simply be a straightforward disarmament agenda. In any case, I want any prohibition to be by a clear operation of law circumscribed by due process with adequate remedies. (Further, why is PICS allowed to operate on a standard of guilty before proven innocent? How is this prior restraint allowed? See: the possible misdemeanor of domestic violence that set the stage for the first denial.)

[RobW]

Yup, you are preaching to the choir here. My original comment still stands - in this specific example the guy is a douche. That is not a comment on the process or its implications, only on the target.

[GunLawyer001]

I'm late to this party by several months, but the case actually supports the denial pretty well.

Quoting from the text of the case at that link in the OP:

[I]Subsection (g)(4) disqualifies any individual "who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution." 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(4).[/I]
. . . .
[I]The hospital stay here was clearly not of a voluntary nature, as it was sandwiched between two jail confinements and accomplished by deputy sheriffs. Also, the hospital stay went beyond mere observation. The trial court's commitment order not only sought an evaluation for sentencing. The order went further and directed a treatment program. Little received treatment at the state hospital, and he was released only after a medical determination that inpatient care was no longer required. That this treatment arose after a proceeding which resulted in a finding of Little's guilt of a crime of violence underscores the trial court's concern for health and safety.[/I]

In response, the citizen (who acted as his own attorney, and in fact used to be an attorney) wrote this:

. . . . "Any notion [he] was the subject of a mental commitment under Section 405 is nonsensical bunk." Little's Br. at 13. He further argues, "[W]ithout a diagnosis of mental illness, there can be no commitment to a mental institution. That is a concept that perhaps even the PSP and the [ALJ] can grasp." Id. at 17. Little summarizes his argument by the following, "Although the abusive judge in [Little's] prosecution ... sloppily used the word `committed' under or pursuant to Section 405, Involuntary civil commitment can only be accomplished in Pennsylvania pursuant to Section 302, 303, or 304 of the MHPA." Id. at 13. Accordingly, Little contends the term "commitment" only applies to involuntary civil commitments under Article III of the MHPA.

What would be silly would be for the courts to sustain prohibitions against people who underwent a few days of inpatient observation "just to be safe" under Section 302, while giving the green light to violent people who pushed their mothers-in-law down stairs and then were ordered into 3 months of observation and treatment for their violent ways.