Open carry/ revocation of LTCF after "302"

**NineseveN** · July 14th, 2007, 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by Lycanthrope

Filing the paperwork means nothing. Until you are commited, you are not judged mentally unstable. If you talk to a county mental health delegate, they are pursuing 302...but....in every instance I have ever encountered, the MH delegate will ask for you to go voluntarily.

That's not law though, correct. Is it policy or some understood thing amongst those in your profession? If any of those were the case, that would be a very good thing.

Police just cannot.....cannot...file paperwork and you "just go". It's gonna take a couple hours for the most part and the people doing the eval can say "no" (and they do). The police do NOT make the determination that you are a danger to self or others. They refer you to an eval to determine that and can detain you until that is completed. The hospital physician will likely interview you after another staff has done an intake. The county delegate may come down and interview or may just be contacted by phone. Someone will be asking you to stay. If you refuse, they will go 302 if necessary.....but "necessary" isn't going to happen if you're in the ER saying: "Yes, I was carrying a firearm openly in my neighborhood. It's legal and I had no intentions of hurting anyone or causing distress". If you're in a calm state of mind and are polite, there is no way you're going in. If you do, you're gonna make some serious coin in court.

Like a lot of the rumors about Children and Youth Caseworkers who took kids from the home "without reason" these things are highly exagerrated to the public. (You have to really hurt a kid hard for a child to be removed for abuse.)

No one really wants to fess up to what the real evidence was so you get these types of stories a lot. No one wants to say they got all liquored up and told someone they didn't want to "go on anymore". Even in those cases where I took people for the eval, they were usually not commited if they didn't have an actual plan or said they just felt that way and wouldn't really consider killing themselves.

There is always the exception, but in the 12 years that I've had to pursue commitments, it's always worked out this way.

Lycananyonecanpmmeforanyspecificsthrope

I'd like your take on Russel Laing's experience: http://www.gunownersalliance.com/r-laing.htm

Prior to June of 1998, there was nothing even remotely resembling Due Process, now all that's there is additional paperwork really, it's still not Adjudication. Things might be different when you're involved, I submit that you're possibly an exceptional individual in your field...but to claim that things like that never happen is something of an exaggeration. Now, if it does happen, you can sue, sure...he did, but it wasn't exactly an easy or inexpensive process. Just because you can sue the cops for beating the snot out of you for no reason, that doesn't make the beating any less significant.

And if I did not feel that I needed help, and was obviously of sound mind, if they asked me to voluntarily commit myself, I might just tell them to go pound salt on principle alone and fight the legal battle afterwards. Smart? No, but I'm not too keen on agreeing to things I don't believe in.

Russell Laing's situation is clearly not the norm, but rights work in the fringe, so I think it's a good discussion to have. If this is not the thread to do it, we can start another.

P.S. Even if Act 17 did not use Section 302 to qualify as a reason for denial of RKBA rights, being deprived of liberty without sufficient due process is something I'm just not terribly fond of. I don't know that a lot of paperwork counts as due process, but it's better than it was I suppose.

**Lycanthrope** · July 14th, 2007, 05:39 PM

That's not law though, correct. Is it policy or some understood thing amongst those in your profession? If any of those were the case, that would be a very good thing.

Filing and not being commited is like it never happened. That's law. Every hospital in Western Pa that I've worked with does it this way.

I've been doing this since 1994 and it's always been the same for me. The way I was trained in 1994 was the same as I was trained in graduate school. All employers I've worked for do it this way.

In the Russel Lang case someone, likely the MH delegate, screwed the pooch hard and probably just went through the process.....perhaps they were new to the job...perhaps someone is lying.....who knows? Why do police just barge in with guns waving......um? That part is the real problem and unknown.

All I know is that I've done a lot of commitments over the years and it just isn't that easy. Just last year a neighbor decided he was checking out with an overdose of medication and let me know beforehand. The delegate wouldn't do an evaul.....because it wasn't happening right now.

Yeah, it could happen......but I really, truly believe you're more likely to be hit by lightning.

**NineseveN** · July 14th, 2007, 07:53 PM

Originally Posted by Lycanthrope

Filing and not being commited is like it never happened. That's law. Every hospital in Western Pa that I've worked with does it this way.

I've been doing this since 1994 and it's always been the same for me. The way I was trained in 1994 was the same as I was trained in graduate school. All employers I've worked for do it this way.

Totally my fault for not being clear...I meant this part, "in every instance I have ever encountered, the MH delegate will ask for you to go voluntarily." That's not a legal requirement, but is it policy/agreement/standard practice to ask for voluntary commitment? If your above answer applies to that question, then I'm an idiot and ignore the second request.

In the Russel Lang case someone, likely the MH delegate, screwed the pooch hard and probably just went through the process.....perhaps they were new to the job...perhaps someone is lying.....who knows? Why do police just barge in with guns waving......um? That part is the real problem and unknown.

That's West Deer for you...there's A LOT going on behind the scenes there...I wouldn't go live there now if you PAID me to.

All I know is that I've done a lot of commitments over the years and it just isn't that easy. Just last year a neighbor decided he was checking out with an overdose of medication and let me know beforehand. The delegate wouldn't do an evaul.....because it wasn't happening right now.

That's kinda stupid and counter-productive.

**Lycanthrope** · July 14th, 2007, 08:09 PM

Originally Posted by NineseveN

Totally my fault for not being clear...I meant this part, "in every instance I have ever encountered, the MH delegate will ask for you to go voluntarily." That's not a legal requirement, but is it policy/agreement/standard practice to ask for voluntary commitment? If your above answer applies to that question, then I'm an idiot and ignore the second request.

By law, it is to "be preferred". This pretty much sums it up:

http://www.psychlaws.org/LegalResour...niastatute.htm

**NineseveN** · July 14th, 2007, 08:13 PM

Originally Posted by Lycanthrope

By law, it is to "be preferred". This pretty much sums it up:

http://www.psychlaws.org/LegalResour...niastatute.htm

Okay, that's kinda where I was going, thanks for the clarification.

**PeteG** · July 16th, 2007, 12:20 PM

Tell me something, was that Federal court of appeals the one that YOUR case would wind up in front of? And, has the SCOTUS affirmed that appeals court's decision, i.e., what makes that appeals court's opinion matter in your area of the country?

There are 11 federal appeals circuits. Pennsylvania is in the Third Circuit.

A decision of a circuit court of appeals is binding upon all the federal district courts in that circuit, and is persuasive (but not binding) upon federal district course in other circuits.

Sometimes one circuit will rule one way on an issue, and another circuit will rule another way. There are times when three or four circuits come down three or four different ways on a complicated legal issue. One of the functions of the Supreme Court of the United States is to resolve conflicts in legal rulings between the circuits.

The ruling regarding the Second Amendment protecting individual rights was in the District of Columbia circuit. That is an influential circuit, but is was a two-to-one decision of only one panel. Sometimes Circuits will re-hear particular cases en banc - which means with all of the judges of that circuit hearing the matter. (Often an issue is heard en banc to resolve a conflict between the opinions of two different three-judge panels within the same circuit.) A decision en banc typically has more persuasive weight in other circuits than the opinion of a single panel.

The absoloute truth is a 5-to-four decision of the Supreme Court . . . for today, anyway.