CCW holder in trouble at Pennsylvania College

[fletcher]

And I asked police to commit him under Section 302 of the mental health procedures act and that was done. He is now ineligible to possess firearms because he was committed involuntarily."

It begins. (That didn't take long)

 

[GhostlyKarliion]

This should serve as a wake up call to everyone; you should know your rights under the law. You don't have to answer any questions. if the man had played this correctly, he probably would have been asked to leave and allowed to go. As it looks to an armchair quarterback, this man waived most of his constitutional rights immediately.

PLEASE learn how to handle a police encounter.

Two phrases everyone should memorize:

"I don't consent to any searches officer."

"Officer, am I free to go now?"

NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER

Allow them to search your person or vehicle without a warrant. I have two changes of clothing, enough food and water for 3 days, a medical kit and a survival kit in my car, I am not going to a mental facility or jail for having a ski mask and gloves and a gun. if they don't have a reason to suspect you of anything then they cannot search anything, keep everything out of plain view.

If they do search your stuff SAY NOTHING MORE to them. Repeat this phrase:

"I wish to speak to my lawyer"

To every question they ask you, illegal searches are not admissible in court and any judge will throw them out in a heartbeat.

Always be truthful but never answer any questions about your behavior. You do have rights under the 5th amendment to the constitution of the United States. If they ask you "do you have any illegal items on you?" you should respond with something like

"Officer, how can I help?"

If they ask again ("by telling me if you have anything illegal on you") don't say yes or no, try this instead, or say nothing at all.

"Officer, am I being detained? Or am I free to go?"

That will establish if you are being arrested or not, a good lawyer can get any case against you thrown out if you are illegally detained. If they tell you that you are being arrested, ask.

"On what charge am I being detained, Officer?"

If they refuse to answer you, you're off the hook. do not, DO NOT answer any questions further until you have your lawyer present.


Everyone needs to watch this video, I know it stars the former director of the ACLU, but even so it is a good video. http://youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA

Please, learn how to protect yourself.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well, it's obvious this DA never read any of those links either

I don't know if she is misstating the law out of ignorance, out of desire to score political points or because she thinks she can get a different result in her circuit; but observation isn't the same thing as involuntary commitment.

 

[TallPine]

What powers does a DA have to put something in your NICS record without even a conviction...?

 

[pcosmar]

Well, that was fast. I wondered how long it would take to use the mental health loophole to remove someones rights.
All those that think it can't happen, have just seen how easy it is.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well, that was fast. I wondered how long it would take to use the mental health loophole to remove someones rights.

The point I have been making is that his rights aren't removed just because some ADA says so. Some people like to gloss over that part; but he still gets a trial on both the issue of involuntary commitment and the issue of any criminal charges. If he hasn't had a trial, then he hasn't lost his rights permnanently.

Of course any ADA can remove your rights temporarily just by filing felony charges... the "indictment for felony loophole". Yet we generally consider that a necessary evil. Apparently not everyone here feels the same way about people so mentally ill that a court has had them involuntarily committed.

To give another example, Florida has what they call the "Baker Act" - this is an involuntarily commitment procedure. It requires a 72-hr observation period at a designated mental health facility and then a trial with counsel before involuntarily commitment. However because of the lack of facilities, people frequently are discharged if they haven't been treated in 72 hours. In one case, an individual had been detained 42 times without ever being committed...

This guy, despite the many, many, interactions with police is still not a prohibited person under Florida law despite having been repeatedly ordered to observation. So color me skeptical that this guy is going to lose his rights because an ADA ordered him detained for observation on a whim.

 

[Sage of Seattle]

Bart,

I have read all of the five hundred (thousand ) posts you've made about mental health and so on regarding firearms and I feel that I agree with virtually every point you've made in the past.

However, when the ADA says this directly

Chardo said. "I contacted the sheriff and had his license to carry a firearm revoked. And I asked police to commit him under Section 302 of the mental health procedures act and that was done. He is now ineligible to possess firearms because he was committed involuntarily."

Chardo said the law says a person cannot possess a firearm if they have been adjudicated incompetent or involuntarily committed for inpatient mental health care.

it more than implies that he was not just held for observation.

 

[Sage of Seattle]

Double tap.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

it more than implies that he was not just held for observation.

Well, we all know how often the papers get things right on firearms. Yet if it is any other subject, we seem to give them a lot more credence than they have earned.

IF this person was actually involuntarily committed, it means that they had a doctor diagnose them, they had a lawyer represent them, and the court still found them to be a danger to themselves or others. I'm not saying that process is never abused; but I've yet to run across the judge who would involuntarily commit someone for just the facts we have heard in this thread. Which tends to suggest strongly to me that either we have not heard all the facts or that he wasn't involuntarily committed.

The ADA lacks the power to order involuntary commitment on his own; but he can probably start the process and order someone to be held for observation against his will. My bet is that this is what happened.

Or perhaps the ADA plans to test the grey area of "adjudicated mentally defective" that Cho fell into. While there is law about what involuntary commitment means and what qualifies, there is zero precedent on what "adjudicated mentally defective means". The only definition is that written by ATF in their regulations. Looking at the involuntary commitment cases, the kind of hearing Cho received did not qualify as "involuntary commitment"; but because a judge determined him to be a danger to himself or others, it did meet the ATF definition of mental defective.

At the time, Virginia didn't report that information to NICS because they didn't intend to deprive him of his rights. The judge even stated that they weren't looking to affect his record and so the type of hearing he received likely wouldn't have withstood scrutiny anyway.It does leave open the question though of whether you can declare someone "adjudicated mentally ill" without the same standard of hearing that someone would receive for involuntary commitment. Looking at past cases, I would say that is doubtful; but maybe the ADA plans to explore that grey area.