"NEW" Form 4473 - Need Some Help

[Brick]

I hear there is a new version of the form that changes the question about "Have you ever been adjudicated a mental defective" to include boards, commissions and determinations by "legal authority". This change seems to be in advance of the actual passage of the so-called "Veterans Disarmament Act".

Can anyone confirm or deny?

What happened to the concept of "prior restraint" or is our government now making things up as they go?

[AR-15 BUILDER]

There is a new version ATF form 4473,Section A Question 11f. Have you ever been adjudicated mental defective(which includesa determination by a court,board,commission,or other lawful authority that you are a danger to yourselfor to othersor are incompetent to manage your own affairs) Or have you ever been commited to a mental institution? (See Important Notice 4 and Definitions5 and 6)
If you have ever been 302'd in Pa you lost your gun rights

[Sebastian]

That's because that portion is existing federal law. It doesn't have anything to do with HR2640, what GOA is incorrectly calling "The Veterans Disarmament Act" It's the Gun Control Act of 1968 that prohibits people who have been committed or adjudicated mentally defective from possessing firearms. Currently, there is no way to get relief from that kind of disability. If it applies to you, it's a life time bar.

[Sebastian]

If you have ever been 302'd in Pa you lost your gun rights

Not necessarily true. I looked into this in some detail a while ago. Some sections of the PA Mental Health Procedures Act do confer a firearms disability for both federal and state. Other's dont. Whether you are a prohibited purpose for the purposes of owning a gun depends entirely on the circumstances surrounding the commitment or adjudication.

[Brick]

But my understanding is that this bill is still held up in the Senate and has not received a final vote or Presidential signature so it is not law yet.

So the question remains. Where does BATFE get the authority to start enforcing measures that aren't yet law?

[NineseveN]

If you have ever been 302'd in Pa you lost your gun rights

Not necessarily true. I looked into this in some detail a while ago. Some sections of the PA Mental Health Procedures Act do confer a firearms disability for both federal and state. Other's dont. Whether you are a prohibited purpose for the purposes of owning a gun depends entirely on the circumstances surrounding the commitment or adjudication.

A Section 302 commitment is a disqualifying condition in Pennsylvania, but the ATF has ruled that since, in their opinion, there is a lack of real due process to PA's Section 302, it is not a federal prohibiting commitment. On a state level, the 302 commitment can be petitioned and a person's rights can be restored IIRC.

Currently, a PA resident could technically move out of state, and as long as that state's law does not include a 302 commitment (or that type of commitment), they can buy a firearm.

[Sebastian]

That's my understanding as well with 302 as well. I don't think there's sufficient due process in PA's Mental Health Procedures Act. That's something that needs to change at some point.

[Sebastian]

But my understanding is that this bill is still held up in the Senate and has not received a final vote or Presidential signature so it is not law yet.

So the question remains. Where does BATFE get the authority to start enforcing measures that aren't yet law?

Did you read what I said? The mental health prohibitions are already federal law. They are part of the Gun Control Act of 1968. HR2640 doesn't add any new prohibitions on who can and can't have a firearm, it just provides funding for the states to update their records with NICS, in addition to requiring the states and federal agencies to provide an avenue of relief for people who are prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm.

[Brick]

[I]
Did you read what I said? The mental health prohibitions are already federal law. They are part of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

But the standard has changed. An adjudication meant or at least implied a court action or court ordered committment to a mental health institution. Which means at least part of an individual's due process rights were preserved. So what constitutes a "board" or "commission" that can determine a person's mental health standing? i.e. Any group of 2 or more that think they are experts?

[Sebastian]

That's described in the Code of Federal Regulations 478.11:

Adjudicated as a mental defective. (a) 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.
(b) The 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 pursuant to articles 50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 850a, 876b.

As others in the thread have mentioned, some states have mental health procedures that the ATF don't consider to have sufficient due process to constitute a prohibition on the purchase or possession of firearms for federal purposes.