Federal civil rights lawsuit vs 302 for lack of due process.

[PAMedic=F|A=]

A lawsuit has been filed in federal court challenging Pennsylvania’s statute that strips anyone committed under Section 302 of Pennsylvania’s Mental Health Procedures Act (MHPA) from possessing a firearm.
In this media environment, where insisting on due process to strip fundamental rights gets spun as, “You want crazy people have guns!,” it’s prudent to cover a bit of background.
Pennsylvania’s Mental Health Procedures Act has three types of commitments. The first is the typical involuntary commitment, under Section 303 and 304 of the MHPA. There is some due process involved to commit someone under Section 303 and more under 304. For 303, for instance, the medical professionals have to petition the Court of Common Pleas and make their case before a judge. There is a right to representation by counsel. Section 303 and 304 commitments are not challenged in this case.
But Pennsylvania also has an observational commitment as well, under Section 302. In the vernacular, you will hear this referred to as a “302 Commitment.” For Section 302 commitments there is no due process involved whatsoever. All you need to earn a 302 commitment is a ride from your girlfriend, wife, mom, or friendly local police officer to a the hospital, and for a physician to sign off. Often times people are not even aware they’ve been committed.
The parties here are both John Does. Both, other than their 302 history, are eligible to possess firearms under federal and state law.
John Doe I was bullied at school, lost his girlfriend, got depressed, and was taken to the hospital at 16 by his concerned mother, held for a few hours and quickly released. He did not know he was a prohibited person until later as an adult he tried to purchase a firearm and was denied. The hospital had held him under Section 302.
John Doe II was taken to the hospital by a friend because he was intoxicated and belligerent. He was kept under Section 302 involuntarily until he sobered up and was released. He has since gone through alcohol rehabilitation and now lives a clean life. John Doe II was also not aware he had actually been held under Section 302 until he tried to purchase a firearm.
The plaintiffs are represented by Jonathan Goldstein of McNelly and Goldstein. Jonathan is an experienced attorney in firearms law.
As mentioned in the case, Pennsylvania law does not require that the examining physician have any specific mental health training, only that they are licensed to practice medicine in Pennsylvania. There is no due process whatsoever, as the suit notes:

An individual is not provided the most basic due process protections before being involuntarily committed under the Temporary Emergency Commitment Statute. He receives no pre-deprivation notice of the potential consequences of the hearing; he receives no right to review by a neutral arbiter he receives no opportunity to make an oral presentation; he receives no means of presenting evidence; he receives no opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and respond to evidence; he receives no right to counsel; and he receives no pre-commitment review by a court or a decision based upon a written record.

All it takes is a ride to the hospital and a doctor to sign off. That’s it.

Under the Fourteenth Amendment, government must provide adequate due process procedures before divesting citizens of fundamental rights. Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co, 455 U.S. 422, 432-33 (1982); Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 495-96 (1980); Tillman v. Lebanon County Correctional Facility, 221 F.3d 410, 421 (3rd Cir. 2000).

Seems like it should be a solid case, but these are the federal courts we’re dealing with. The same federal courts have largely said that the Second Amendment is a second class right, not worthy of the same protections, often not even close to the same protections, as other rights. But I think there’s some hope here.
If we look at the last en-banc decision on guns out of the 3rd Circuit, the Binderup case, it was heard before Judges McKee (Clinton), Smith (G.W.), Ambro (Clinton), Fischer (G.W.), Chagares (G.W.), Jordan (G.W.), Hardiman (G.W.), Greenway (Obama), Vanaskie (Obama), and Schwartz (Obama), Fuentes (Clinton).
Fischer (G.W.) is up for replacement. But so are Julio Fuentes’ (Clinton) and Marjorie Rendell’s (Clinton) seats. Binderup did pretty well on a more heavily Dem appointed panel. If Trump can replace the three vacancies with solid judges we may have a decent chance with this case.[ATTACH]US District Court for Eastern District of PA[/ATTACH]

http://www.pagunblog.com/wp-content/...-v-PSP.pdf.pdf

[Skreamz]

I hope they win and have their 302's expunged.

[Jason O]

Thankfully, I have no experience with any of this sort of thing, but it sounds scary as hell to go through. I'm sure there are plenty of other consequences as one goes through life also. I can't imagine being held against my will for ANY medical reason, let alone without due process and legal representation.

Sorry, I'm sure many will disagree, but any adult should have the right to refuse medical treatment regardless of the situation. If they are a danger to others, thats a criminal matter.

[allenr]

I have a friend who is agun owner. He was in a nasty divorce and he was depressed because of it. He mentioned to a neighbor who knew he had guns that he was depressed. He made the mistake of saying that he wished he would die to get away from it all. He never said he was even thinking is suicide. The neighbor called the police and reported it fearing he was going to commit suicide. The police interviewed the neighbor and shortly here after a detective arrived and they visited my friend. They did nothing offensive but expressed concern that he might harm himself and convinced him to go for a voluntary 302 evaluation. He was never told the doc could commit him. After some questioning by the Doc who was not a psychiatrist he was committed and could not leave the hospital. He did have access to a phone, called and explained what had happened. He is wealthy, and he can affford really top notch lawyers. He asked me get him, and I did.

It took the lawyer 2 days to get him released. The threat of a lawsuit over wrongful imprisonment filed against the Doc, institution and police for not telling him he could be committed did the trick. He was released and asssured the record would be expunged. Which it was and he renewed his LTCF the next year without problem.

Good outcome in a really bad situation, but I'll bet there are many bad outcomes. IMhope the plaintiffs in this case prevail.

[Skreamz]

The sad thing is it takes a boat load of money to get this taken care of. Unless you're well off, You're stuck like Chuck. It's not right. My rights shouldn't have been taken away in the first place. The Constitution and the Bill Of Rights and everything else doesn't matter. They do what they want.

[Manxdriver]

I thought the courts had to approve a 302 event. If I'm wrong, please educate me.

[Emptymag]

I thought the courts had to approve a 302 event. If I'm wrong, please educate me.

No.
They should give you the opportunity to voluntarily check yourself in. If you choose not to and they 302 you, that's a doctor thing - not a court thing.
That allows them to hold you for X hours. If they deem you need to be held further THEN there has to be a "hearing" where a judge can give them the OK to 303 you which holds you for X more hours.

[Skreamz]

I suppose the 14th Amendment doesn't mean a damn thing. They do what they want to. I even tried to get a hold of a couple of state reps and they're totally useless. What now?

[Carson]

Thankfully, I have no experience with any of this sort of thing, but it sounds scary as hell to go through. I'm sure there are plenty of other consequences as one goes through life also. I can't imagine being held against my will for ANY medical reason, let alone without due process and legal representation.

Sorry, I'm sure many will disagree, but any adult should have the right to refuse medical treatment regardless of the situation. If they are a danger to others, thats a criminal matter.

I would disagree. It is not always so black and white. I have dealt with many elderly and not so elderly that became a danger to themselves and others because of mentally degenerative issues and they needed medical intervention, not a pair of handcuffs and a cell.

[Jason O]

I would disagree. It is not always so black and white. I have dealt with many elderly and not so elderly that became a danger to themselves and others because of mentally degenerative issues and they needed medical intervention, not a pair of handcuffs and a cell.

But what if in any of those cases, the individual truly wishes to harm themselves (taking their own life) What right should the gov't have to stop them? If you can convince them not to, great. I just don't think gov't should have that sort of power over a citizen in the name of "well being"