Anyone have a 302 commitment (no 303 commitment) that can't possess a firearm

[Monie5115]

I apologize if this is long but please read through it if you can. I unconstitutionally had my 2nd amendment rights taken away when I was 17 from a 302 commitment initiated by a 201 voluntary parental consent. I tried to expunge and relief my rights but ultimately lost from being unprepared and filing in a democratic district and having a democratic judge. Tried doing it by myself after not having the funding and I messed up my appeal and rendered that judgement final. So now my plan by the end of the year is to file a federal injunction and declarative judgement to enjoin the federal and state government from enforcing the laws that are prohibiting me federally and state level from having a gun.ive done extensive research and takes to multiple lawyers specifically in the nature of my case and the procedural aspects of court and from my understanding Based off of the federal Pennsylvania precedents of Wilborn and Franklin which both ruled that a 302 commitment is insufficient to trigger the federal ban and a 1976 supreme Court case Bartley v kremens ruling that parental voluntary consent for people under 18 is unconstitutional it's highly likely that if i follow through with this expensive case I could make another landmark case in the gun community considering the previous precedents. My goal is to have the federal court invalidate the 302 that triggered usc 922 (g) (4) insufficient removing my name from the nics database creating another precedent, force the state to remove my name off of the pics data base since my federal rights would be restored and hopefully the biggest one have the court strike down 302s commitments that happened from an initial 201 voluntary parental consent as either insufficient to trigger the state bar or rule it unconstitutional creating yet another precedent for people who've been hurt by this to have hope. To preference since I've already filed in state court and lost, issue preclusion(which means basically you can't file the same thing with the same parties more than once cause if you do the court will dismiss it) would render me going through the state as meaningless. When filing for relief in state court is really picky on jobs and tickets and any other hiccups even minor that you had in your life but the federal route is more straight forward. And the reason why I'm going after the 201 instead of the 302s constitutionality is because of the Wilborn and Franklin cases. the court is going to use the constitutional avoidance doctrine to not answer that question if they can resolve it on non constitutional ground aka Statutory law as opposed to the 201 which from my knowledge has never been ruled on other than the 1976 case and few others regarding due process. And also since laws are presumed constitutional and 5 other similar court cases tried attacking the 302 on 2nd amendment claims from what I understand your not going to win that claim and all of them lost so you have to attack it under different constitutional rights under the 14th amendment instead of the 2nd amendment which the parental consent one is a direct violation. Anyways there's a lot of legal stuff that might not make sense to people but the gist of why I'm making this post is to share my story a little and to call of to anyone who's been affected by this if you were serious about getting your rights back and wanted to get your rights back it is also possible in federal court to file a class action lawsuit where multiple people join a lawsuit and by winning it helps those people out too and possible many others that have been affected by these Pennsylvania laws that are unconstitutional. The more people the more impact it might have on law makers. Now obviously I know everyone's cases are different and different evidence require different set of circumstances and those will produce different outcomes but there's different standards in court that you have to take account for. I'm saving a lot of money and I'd help fund whatever it takes if people who were affected wanted to make a change so yeah hopefully you guys read this and hopefully you guys agree with me and support my cause wether you were affected by these laws or not. We all believe in the 2nd amendment.and if people are confused or have questions I can explain how I'm interpreting the situation and I'll have a civil discussion with people about my cause if people disagree or have questions.

[STBear]

This wall of text is hard to read. You will get more people to read it if you have paragraphs. I wish you good luck.

[Walleye Hunter]

Yeah, you gotta break it up and I don't see how it could have to be so long anyway. Less is more.

[Monie5115]

Yeah, you gotta break it up and I don't see how it could have to be so long anyway. Less is more.

Basically I'm filing a federal injunction to regain my 2nd amendment rights back since I failed in the state court. Ive asked if you or if you know anyone that's been affected by a 302 if they wanted to get their rights back that this might be another avenue that could change the nature of the laws that exist in Pennsylvania

[Monie5115]

Basically I'm filing a federal injunction to regain my 2nd amendment rights back since I failed in the state court. Ive asked if you or if you know anyone that's been affected by a 302 if they wanted to get their rights back that this might be another avenue that could change the nature of the laws that exist in Pennsylvania

[father-of-five]

I apologize in advance if I misread it, but are you wanting to have the 302 involuntary commitment thrown out based on laws and practices regarding what types of psychiatric treatment minors can or can't to consent for?

[Monie5115]

Yeah, you gotta break it up and I don't see how it could have to be so long anyway. Less is more.

I apologize in advance if I misread it, but are you wanting to have the 302 involuntary commitment thrown out based on laws and practices regarding what types of psychiatric treatment minors can or can't to consent for?

In a way yes. It's going to be confusing but federal and state courts have different standards of how they look at things. On the federal level in merely challenging the statutory law regarding wether a 302 constitutes an adjudication as mentally defective and involuntary commitment to a mental institution usc 922 (g) (4) of federal law which based off of Franklin and Wilborn federal cases I should win that. And on the state level challenge the 201 commitment statue as insufficient or unconstitutional. From my understanding the 302 is already constitutional based off of other court cases but the initial treatment the 201 is questionable. Basically if you heard of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine the exclusionary rule when it comes to government instruction there must be a civil equivalent

[arjohnson]

Nope don*t have one.

[father-of-five]

In a way yes. It's going to be confusing but federal and state courts have different standards of how they look at things. On the federal level in merely challenging the statutory law regarding wether a 302 constitutes an adjudication as mentally defective and involuntary commitment to a mental institution usc 922 (g) (4) of federal law which based off of Franklin and Wilborn federal cases I should win that. And on the state level challenge the 201 commitment statue as insufficient or unconstitutional. From my understanding the 302 is already constitutional based off of other court cases but the initial treatment the 201 is questionable. Basically if you heard of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine the exclusionary rule when it comes to government instruction there must be a civil equivalent

What happened that changed your voluntary psychiatric admission into an involuntary commitment?

[Monie5115]

What happened that changed your voluntary psychiatric admission into an involuntary commitment?

Basically I signed an ama (against medical advice) right before I turned 18 and when you do that it allows the hospital to hold you up to 72 hours more to determine if you can leave or not. Since I was a minor and my parents refused to let me come back home they basically 302 me because I couldn't financially support myself that was the physicians actual report and there wasn't any clear diagnosis when the state laws requires there to be one and on top of that I was in cys and I had a plethora of other options that could of work going back to cys, homeless shelter, a foster home, independent living and ect....I guess to them that fit the clear and present danger statue cause I couldn't satisfy my nourishment, care, shelter or self protection and safety. I highly doubt they can allow a minor to be on the street which is why they did that but that exceeds what it means to actually be commutable. You have to actually be suicidal or homicidal or harming yourself or threatening to harm other to be committed that's how it should be but the interpretation of the 302 is so broad that a physician can unilaterally revoke your 2nd amendment rights over a stroke of a pen cause of a
Questionable diagnosis