Should I fear losing my guns from a involuntary commitment?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I can't talk about the specifics, I was just wondering if it would affect me in the future or if I moved to another state, I now have possession of my firearms but I haven't attempted to buy any lately.

You need to talk with a lawyer who is familiar with Florida state law and precedent in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. He has both an ethical obligation to keep the specifics of your incident confidential and can give you an answer.

I do know that there is a Circuit Court split on the issue of when an involuntary commitment for observation becomes a disabling involuntary commitment to a mental facility under 18 USC 922(g)(4). The Attorney General's letter suggests that Florida state law is OK with you possessing a firearm; but it doesn't explain any potential consequences under Federal law.

There are some excellent past discussions of the intricacies of this area of law here on THR; but it is definitely an area where you could benefit from a lawyer's advice.

 

[PILMAN]

I was told it would affect me getting a job with law enforcement or military on some other forums but I don't know what it's classified, on the form 4472 it asks if you've ever been involuntary taken to a mental institution and that's what i'm concerned about. Does review count as a mental institution or involuntary?

 

[SHvar]

It sounds to me to be along the same lines as an arrest, it may or may not result in any charges, but they can hold you by law for 72 hours.
Its almost funny to see an individual that has been arrested for DUI on a friday night so obviously intoxicated, blatently drunk, taken into a hospital trying to refuse a blood test, the doctors, hospital security, and police will strap them to a bed, and the doctor draws blood if needed.
Years ago a niece of mine used to laugh at all the guys riding bicycles everywhere they go, all year around in some places, she called them honorable members of the "DUI club for men".

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Does review count as a mental institution or involuntary?

This is why you need a lawyer. In some jurisdictions a temporary detention does not count as an involuntary commitment. In other jurisdictions, a temporary detention does not count as an involuntary commitment; but does count as "adjudicated mentally ill" which is also a prohibiting factor. The thread below discusses some of those jurisdictions and cases:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=307220&highlight=mental&page=6

However, I strongly recommend you talk to a lawyer familiar with Florida law on this issue.

 

[IllHunter]

Two pages and

no one brought up Catch-22. If I disagree with your evaluation of me and refuse to consent to your intrusive and vexatious "few hours at the hospital" I'm a candidate for a "few hours at the hospital"! Obviously if I can think this convolutedly, I'm not fall down drunk, or am I? see:Catch-22
This issue is such a slippery slope, I'd sell all the guns to hire lawyers, oh wait, the cops would have the guns. AndI have no other valuable assets...C-22.This is scarier than any anxiety I felt over not being able to hear SCOTUS oral arguments today.

 

[Gouranga]

This is scarier than any anxiety I felt over not being able to hear SCOTUS oral arguments today

You are sounding a little unstable there....would you mind if we went ahead and sent you in for an evaulation?

Really, I understand your fear I do not think it is commonly abused but I know of one case where it has been repeatedly in NC and it has been a nightmare for that person. The police once left a minor child home alone during one of these incidents (they refused to believe the person they came to pick up that a 4 yr old was napping upstairs). When used properly though, it is a critical tool to get people help before they hurt themselves or others.

 

[divemedic]

If I disagree with your evaluation of me and refuse to consent to your intrusive and vexatious "few hours at the hospital" I'm a candidate for a "few hours at the hospital"!

The refusal itself does not create the need to be hospitalized, the fact that you are psychologically unstable, as evidenced by your behavior, does. What do you propose?

A man has cut his wrists with a knife in an apparently unsuccessful attempt to take his own life, but refuses to go to the hospital. Are you seriously proposing that I leave you there? Then what happens when I do so, and you are killed? Only this time, you used a gun and took your wife and children with you?

How about the man that I ran on last week who was intoxicated and hit a telephone pole in his truck. He had a large bump on the head and was acting confused? He didn't want to go to the hospital. Is he confused because of the alcohol, or the blow to the head? Do I leave him there because he refused? What if he dies as a result of a head injury, and his lawyer can show that he was not intoxicated, just confused from brain damage?

These cases are not hypothetical- I have seen both of them more times than I can count. In one case, the medic left the suicide attempter at home, and she killed her children and herself.

If you want that and can get your fellow citizens to agree, then change the law. Just be sure to include a provision that insulates me from liability when you do.

 

[PILMAN]

I just called the clerk of the courts and they said that the records are public even though I wasn't charged with anything.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

Contact a Lawyer ASAP

 

[akodo]

Two things I want to call out here:

Pilman,

you state you were committed for a kidney issue. Baker relates to mental health issues. I don't see the connect. Granted, I get not wanting to admit to a mental problem on the internet, but no way the Kidney thing is covered by Baker.

Divemedic, Let me see if I understand this. The state you are in, if I refuse medical treatment by you you can have me commited for 72 hours if you believe my life maybe in danger from refusing said medial treatment?

Note, as stated before, Baker only counts if the Medical people believe you are refusing aid due to mental issues. You can always say 'I refuse medical aid due to religious beliefs' or 'I refuse to be taken to your hospital, the expense will be too high' Medical would have a hard time stating the person was refusing medical care because they had mental health issues with a statement like that. (Now, saying 'I don't want to go to the hospital because they will implant a chip in my head' that's crazy talk and Baker will kick in)

at least that is my understanding.

 

[akodo]

The refusal itself does not create the need to be hospitalized, the fact that you are psychologically unstable, as evidenced by your behavior, does. What do you propose?

A man has cut his wrists with a knife in an apparently unsuccessful attempt to take his own life, but refuses to go to the hospital. Are you seriously proposing that I leave you there? Then what happens when I do so, and you are killed? Only this time, you used a gun and took your wife and children with you?

How about the man that I ran on last week who was intoxicated and hit a telephone pole in his truck. He had a large bump on the head and was acting confused? He didn't want to go to the hospital. Is he confused because of the alcohol, or the blow to the head? Do I leave him there because he refused? What if he dies as a result of a head injury, and his lawyer can show that he was not intoxicated, just confused from brain damage?

These cases are not hypothetical- I have seen both of them more times than I can count. In one case, the medic left the suicide attempter at home, and she killed her children and herself.

If you want that and can get your fellow citizens to agree, then change the law. Just be sure to include a provision that insulates me from liability when you do.

It would seem to me that if Police have no duty to protect, then an ambulance crew could not be held accountable if, upon obeying a person's wish to NOT be transported, they went and died, or had a killing spree, or whatever.

But remember, freedom comes with a price, and generally that price is a 0.001% chance a free person will make a bad decision and cause havoc & harm.

However, just because someone MAY make a bad decision and cause & and harm, that is NOT a good reason to suspend freedom of all of us. Whenever you give someone the ability to exercise power over others (no matter how well intentioned the thought, no matter how honest or trustworthy the executor of that power is) you reduce freedom.

So yes, if a guy slashes his wrists, and you are called, he should have the right to send you away.

 

[MarkDido]

So yes, if a guy slashes his wrists, and you are called, he should have the right to send you away.

Wait until he goes unconscious from loss of blood. Then ask him again. It's called implied consent.

 

[divemedic]

However, just because someone MAY make a bad decision and cause & and harm, that is NOT a good reason to suspend freedom of all of us. Whenever you give someone the ability to exercise power over others (no matter how well intentioned the thought, no matter how honest or trustworthy the executor of that power is) you reduce freedom.

OK, how about as a thought exercise, I give you a few examples, and you tell me what you think you would do as the paramedic on scene:

A motorcycle rider is in an accident, and is not wearing a helmet. He takes a blow to the head and is dazed and confused. He does not want to go to the hospital and threatens violence if you try. Do you accept his refusal?

A 16 year old teen is in a car accident. He has an obviously broken arm, but does not want to go to the hospital. Do you accept his refusal?

A man is intoxicated and gets in a fight. He does not remember what day it is, nor does he know the name of the city he is in. He is refusing care. Do you accept his refusal?

In each of those real life cases, the person is not legally able to refuse medical care because of altered mental status or because they are a minor. The law REQUIRES you to treat them, and the medic who does not is civilly and criminally liable if they do not. If you accept refusals from any of the above, you can lose your license, go to jail, and be sued for everything you own.

 

[bearmgc]

Yes, you should fear losing your guns.

 

[cskny]

divemedic, I think you're wasting your time. You are so obviously correct this discussion is just silly to read.

 

[akodo]

OK, how about as a thought exercise, I give you a few examples, and you tell me what you think you would do as the paramedic on scene:

A motorcycle rider is in an accident, and is not wearing a helmet. He takes a blow to the head and is dazed and confused. He does not want to go to the hospital and threatens violence if you try. Do you accept his refusal?

Depends on the nature of his refusal. If he states 'it is against my religion' then yea, you NEED to walk away. If it is clear that his head injury is affecting THAT DECISION then he is good to go. However, he can be dazed and confused (not remember the date, let's say, wobbly on his feet) and still be of sound mind enough to reject a trip to the hospital.

A 16 year old teen is in a car accident. He has an obviously broken arm, but does not want to go to the hospital. Do you accept his refusal?

Let's change this to 18, don't want to get parents involved. Yes, as long as the person is in his right mind he has EVERY right to refuse. And actually, my understanding is that this is pretty common for someone in a jurisdiction where an ambulance takes them to hospital X based on their location, that a person who has a non-life threatening injury pass on the ambulance trip, call someone else and get taken to hospital Y.

A man is intoxicated and gets in a fight. He does not remember what day it is, nor does he know the name of the city he is in. He is refusing care. Do you accept his refusal?

In this case, assuming that he failed to answer numerous 'easy questions' (and not a case of answering 8 out of 10 correctly, identified a monday as a tuesday, and identified the wrong suburb, such as stating the town was Boston rather than Summersville, which is a small suburb just north of Boston)

then the person is addled enough that he can be taken, with the caveat that if he gives a very reasonable expiation which makes it clear that at least in THIS ISSUE he is not addled, he gets to stay.

In each of those real life cases, the person is not legally able to refuse medical care because of altered mental status or because they are a minor. The law REQUIRES you to treat them, and the medic who does not is civilly and criminally liable if they do not. If you accept refusals from any of the above, you can lose your license, go to jail, and be sued for everything you own.

Absolutely false. In ALL those examples, all the person has to do is state 'It is against my religion' and you (or the city) become liable for infringing his freedom of religion.

Also note, TREAT does not instantly mean 'haul away to the hospital'

You seem to be operating under the assumption that any time YOU think someone should go to the hospital, their 'amateur opinion' disagreement with your "professional opinion" indicates proof that they are not thinking right.


The only time someone should receive medical care they do NOT want, or be transported some place they do NOT want to go is if there is VERY SOLID PROOF of mental impairment specifically related to the decision receive medical care.

 

[cz75bdneos22]

it happened to me...got my guns consfiscated by and i did not have money to fight the case thru a lawyer. it was 7 guns total...

 

[PILMAN]

I was told originally i'd have to petition the courts and I brought up the "myfloridalegal" that says that I wasn't charged with a crime and the guns would have to be returned, after going through a lot of hassle, they agreed to release them to me but I still fear it could affect me in the future. I do have the guns in my possession though.