302s and prohibition of gun ownership

[bill gray]

Took an NRA course this weekend and they started off with a lawyer speaking re PA Law. He serves as a judge in the case of persons brought in to a mental health facility against their will for a 72 observation. According to this attorney, this is called a 302 admission. During the 72 hrs, a hearing is required to decide whether or not to extend the hospitalization for several possible periods of time and these are known as 303s, 304s and 305s, depending on what period of time is decided on. This attorney stated that the initial 72 hr hold does NOT prohibit firearm possession but the others do. There is a loophole for the patient. He/she can ask for a voluntary admission instead of the 302 etc. during the hearing and before that decision is made. If that is allowed, this admission does not affect firearm rights. I often see 302s mentioned here as barring firearm possession and it would seem that this is not the case. Any thoughts to the contrary?

[KingShootersSupply]

He is wrong. Being 302'd is absolutely a prohibiting offense. A person is involuntarily committed if they are 302'd.

We are even seeing people who say they want to be voluntarily admitted who end up being 302'd.

May I ask who the attorney was? Send me a PM if you want.

ETA: See 18 USC §922(g)(4)

It shall be unlawful for any person—who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution; to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

Also see instruction 11.f on the 4473 for Adjudicated Mentally Defective

Adjudicated Mentally Defective: A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:
(1) is a danger to himself or to others; or (2) lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs. This term shall include: (1) a finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and (2) Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility.

Committed to a Mental Institution: A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term includes commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution. Please also refer to Question 11.c. for the definition of a prohibited person.

[jim-analog]

Greetings,

As noted above, any 302 (non-voluntary) IS prohibitory. However, you were correct that a VOLUNTARY stay is not. Please follow up with the lawyer and correct him so bad info doesn't circulate.

Regards, Jim

[SigForLife]

A 302 is also specifically prohibiting under Pennsylvania Law, 18 Pa.C.S. 6105(c)(4) - "A person who has been adjudicated as an incompetent or who has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution for inpatient care and treatment under section 302, 303 or 304 of the provisions of the act of July 9, 1976 (P.L.817, No.143), known as the Mental Health Procedures Act. This paragraph shall not apply to any proceeding under section 302 of the Mental Health Procedures Act unless the examining physician has issued a certification that inpatient care was necessary or that the person was committable."

[4thdimension]

I think it may be law that a person has to be offered a voluntary commitment (201) before they can be 302'd.

[SigForLife]

I think it may be law that a person has to be offered a voluntary commitment (201) before they can be 302'd.

Unfortunately, although the MHPA says the least restrictive means are to be utilized, the courts have NOT interpreted that to require that a voluntary commitment be offered or that even where the person agrees to be voluntarily committed that it precludes the hospital from involuntarily committing them. We need massive reform to the MHPA...

[Kberg]

You're wrong, and the lawyer was correct. Under a 302 warrant you are only held to be observed, and not involuntarily committed.

[t1066]

That may be your experience in your facility.

But I've heard a different story from so many clients that I have to believe there's some truth to it; people who were TOLD that they were admitted on a 201, but the paperwork for a 302 was sent to the PSP. My theory is that it's easier to handle patients who believe that they are there voluntarily, and lying to them is not viewed as an issue. And the patient has zero control over the paperwork or where his body is taken and by whom.

It's simply too easy to be admitted on a 302, based on the opinion of one doctor, whose facility makes a lot more cash from a 302 admission than from releasing the patient. Particularly for minors brought in by their parent or parents. Plenty of parents are just out of their depth in child-raising, and when a teen acts like a teen instead of a sweet little child, the kid goes to the shrink to be fixed.

A doctor who says the patient is fine and sends him on his way, faces more risks than the doctor who admits every patient for a thorough review. That's just the way it is. Admission looks like "due diligence", releasing him COULD result in the patient killing himself or someone else tomorrow. There's no downside to a 302 admission, for anyone except the person who loses his rights for life, and there's nobody to sue for that.

I know what the statute says, I know the theory that's out there for public consumption. I know that some of those admitted have slashed wrists or they punched out their folks. But the fact remains, being admitted once says nothing at all about the same person 5 or 10 or 20 years later, and either our legal system is horribly defective in this regard, or psychiatry is a joke and we can't fix mental illness, ever.

You're wrong, and the lawyer was correct. Under a 302 warrant you are only held to be observed, and not involuntarily committed.

Since you are new here, you may not be aware, but the other person I'm quoting here is a lawyer.

You also might want to check out this link: https://www.alleghenycounty.us/Human...ommitment.aspx

Upshot is you are wrong. 302 is an involuntary commitment.

[Mike_Golf]

Since you are new here, you may not be aware, but the other person I'm quoting here is a lawyer.

You also might want to check out this link: https://www.alleghenycounty.us/Human...ommitment.aspx

Upshot is you are wrong. 302 is an involuntary commitment.

Hold up. New guy probably should have left a zombie thread alone, but here’s a post from Joshua Prince’s blog: https://blog.princelaw.com/2017/12/2...section-922g4/

So the previous posts were certainly true at that time, but it’s less clear now. I don’t claim to know either way-this was my first stop after reading that blog post.

[t1066]

Hold up. New guy probably should have left a zombie thread alone, but here’s a post from Joshua Prince’s blog: https://blog.princelaw.com/2017/12/2...section-922g4/

So the previous posts were certainly true at that time, but it’s less clear now. I don’t claim to know either way-this was my first stop after reading that blog post.

I wasn't commenting on whether or not it still triggers a permanent disability, but it is an involuntary commitment regardless.