Federal mental health gun ban struck down

**GeneCC** · December 19th, 2014, 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by scruff

The left is always crying about discrimination, real or imagined. It's good to see that turned back on them. Can't discriminate against the homeless? OK, give them their 2nd Amendment rights too - you can't say they only have the right to have a gun at home if they have no home. Can't discriminate against someone with an illness? Fine, then give formerly mentally ill people their 2A rights back.

The Pink Pistols must absolutely give them fits.

The Komen Breast Cancer guns do give them some pain.

Good point about homeless folks - making them get a Photo ID that shows their residency is "racist" but it's OK to infringe on their self defense by insisting upon a photo ID to purchase a firearm or to get a license to carry.

**dkf** · December 20th, 2014, 02:26 AM

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

I should point out that the law wasn't exactly struck down, and the PSP is still Hell-bent on prosecuting as close to 100% of PICS denials as they can get away with.

If you have a mental health episode in your past, DO NOT just go to a gun shop and see if you pass PICS now. If you do, and then you get The Call from the PSP or the local cops, you can still call me to see if I can help with your criminal defense against the felony charge. But it will be a lot cheaper for you if you don't roll the dice and get denied.

How would someone whom thinks there is a chance they get denied check before going to the gun shop? Sheriff's office?

**press1280** · December 20th, 2014, 10:09 AM

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

I should point out that the law wasn't exactly struck down, and the PSP is still Hell-bent on prosecuting as close to 100% of PICS denials as they can get away with.

If you have a mental health episode in your past, DO NOT just go to a gun shop and see if you pass PICS now. If you do, and then you get The Call from the PSP or the local cops, you can still call me to see if I can help with your criminal defense against the felony charge. But it will be a lot cheaper for you if you don't roll the dice and get denied.

From my understanding, this case was based on the fact that those involuntarily committed are supposed to have an avenue to get their rights restored. Congress had authorized a Federal program in 1992, which apparently hasn't been funded. States also have their own programs, but not all. Michigan (where this case originated), didn't have a program. So basically this guy had nowhere to go, which was the main issue.

But this opinion, IMO, is pretty big, not because of this case. The court uses strict scrutiny and goes to great lengths to explain why many of the other courts have been approaching 2A cases in the WRONG way. This is the kind of thing that gets SCOTUS attention.

**Statkowski** · December 20th, 2014, 03:58 PM

States also have their own programs, but not all. Michigan (where this case originated), didn't have a program.

Does Pennsylvania? Based on what GunLawyer001 posted, I'm assuming it does.

**Bang** · December 20th, 2014, 05:11 PM

Reading (plodding) through the court's methodologies and explanations is scary when one contemplates how multi-leveled the applications of law are sliced and diced.

Of particular concern is that the scrutinies, as stated, examine whether or not a particular infringement or regulation falls within or without the core of the 2nd as it was understood in 1791. I don't think the courts that have considered that difference have identified what is the core, due to that pesky comma.

**press1280** · December 23rd, 2014, 05:31 AM

Originally Posted by Bang

Reading (plodding) through the court's methodologies and explanations is scary when one contemplates how multi-leveled the applications of law are sliced and diced.

Of particular concern is that the scrutinies, as stated, examine whether or not a particular infringement or regulation falls within or without the core of the 2nd as it was understood in 1791. I don't think the courts that have considered that difference have identified what is the core, due to that pesky comma.

Some say the core is the home, others say self-defense is the core.

**sgklinger** · December 30th, 2014, 10:35 AM

There is a process for the restoration of rights in PA, but it does no good because you would still be federally prohibited. There is no real legal process for the federal restoration of rights for a mental health commitment.

Currently, if you have a mental health commitment on your record you are banned for life under federal law with no real recourse. Until last year, the PA legal language was vague enough so that you could argue for an expungement, but that was struck down by a court interpretation in December 2013. I should also mention that 302 does not involve the court system or any government official. You are never given a hearing or trial to defend yourself and your 2nd Amendment rights can be stripped away. There are many thousands of Pennsylvanians who are barred for life because of a questionable episode many years ago.

If you ever find yourself upset or in a bad place, do not say the wrong things to the wrong people. And if you do and it is suggested by a police officer or mental health professional that you voluntarily commit yourself, do so or they may commit you and it is game over for your gun rights.

**LBaker** · January 5th, 2015, 10:24 PM

Originally Posted by sgklinger

There is a process for the restoration of rights in PA, but it does no good because you would still be federally prohibited. There is no real legal process for the federal restoration of rights for a mental health commitment.

Currently, if you have a mental health commitment on your record you are banned for life under federal law with no real recourse. Until last year, the PA legal language was vague enough so that you could argue for an expungement, but that was struck down by a court interpretation in December 2013. I should also mention that 302 does not involve the court system or any government official. You are never given a hearing or trial to defend yourself and your 2nd Amendment rights can be stripped away. There are many thousands of Pennsylvanians who are barred for life because of a questionable episode many years ago.

If you ever find yourself upset or in a bad place, do not say the wrong things to the wrong people. And if you do and it is suggested by a police officer or mental health professional that you voluntarily commit yourself, do so or they may commit you and it is game over for your gun rights.

So, what implications does this case have for PA? Will this help us get a system in place for cases like this?

**JenniferG** · January 5th, 2015, 11:04 PM

The Pink Pistols must absolutely give them fits.

The Komen Breast Cancer guns do give them some pain.

Pink pistols isn't about Susan Komen Breast Cancer charities. Pink Pistols is a Gay and Trans pro gun organization. I've met a few that belonged to the group and they were outstanding individuals. They are about guns.