• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Going To The Nut House??? Being Forced Into The Nut House Without Losing Your Gun Rights

Reptile

NES Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
27,972
Likes
20,250
Feedback: 123 / 0 / 0
Any gun owner in Massachusetts can be Red Flagged and forced into the Nut House.
If they want you, you are going no matter what.
At least for a 72 hour hold.

If that is the case, can you just go voluntarily to avoid losing your gun rights in the end?
 
Now I'm curious--is smoking allowed in the Nut House?
They likely have out door areas with designated smoke breaks. They probably offer you nicotine patches also.

As to OPs question, I’m not sure a 72 hour observation counts as an involuntary commitment per the law.

Maybe someone more in the know than I can chime in?
 
They likely have out door areas with designated smoke breaks. They probably offer you nicotine patches also.

As to OPs question, I’m not sure a 72 hour observation counts as an involuntary commitment per the law.

Maybe someone more in the know than I can chime in?
It now does with the new gun bill.

It didn't used to.

If new bill passes a 72 hour hold will cause you big problems. Even if released.
 
Any gun owner in Massachusetts can be Red Flagged and forced into the Nut House.
If they want you, you are going no matter what.
At least for a 72 hour hold.

If that is the case, can you just go voluntarily to avoid losing your gun rights in the end?
Probably

Almost anyone can red flag you, but red flag is a means to confiscate firearms. It has nothing to do with forcing you into a nuthouse.

Now forcing you into a nut house, someone has to sign off "You are a dangerous to yourself or someone else" (which many people can do), and even then in MA, it's not a commitment.

The whole pink slip thing in MA is a request for evaluation (not a commitment) during which they can hold you for 72 hours. You are still not disqualified. During that 72 hours the vast majority of people agree to a conditional voluntary status...meaning the legal process is almost done with you. You agree to stay for evaluation/treatment and give them notice that you intend to leave and at that time they can chose to pursue commitment (with a judge) or release you. Most everyone leaves when their insurance runs out.

If during that 72 hours you do not sign a conditional voluntary, it falls upon the hospital to 1) release you or 2) make the case TO A JUDGE that you should be held. If the later is done and the judge says yes, then you are prohibited. Very few people meet the legal bar of "committed" to bar them from firearms.

Now some states (VA and CA if memory serves) specifically ask if you ever were ordered in-patient and changed to voluntary, but it's usually limited to something like "in the last 5 years". And to me, if a state is determined to make conditional stays grounds for denial, then it should have a limited shelf-life (5 years for instance). I think one state has a 3-strikes rule too...you can have voluntary stays, but once you go in a 3rd time, you're disqualified.

This is the issue I have with some towns in RI that do their own thing and ask for medical release form (which I think legally they're on thin ice). They can get that voluntary stay info and use it against you later. There is no time when the info is so old it becomes irrelevant. Also they're getting squishy with their wording in some towns and say "confined or treated for mental illness". Well Jeez that can cover almost anything....I was feeling depressed during my divorce...and went to a therapist for a year or two. I think the only thing that does not count is marriage counseling.

Sad to say I have way too much experience with this being an some EMT 30+ years ago and being married to a person in and out of facilities for 20 years (sometimes voluntary, sometimes NOT).
Now admittedly they were pretty anal about things back then in the 1990's. All you had to say in an ER was the wrong thing and you'd be going for a ride in the ambulance, but my buddy tells me they're a little more discerning now. An actual attempt or plan/threats to do harm is usual the litmus test
 
Last edited:
It now does with the new gun bill.

It didn't used to.

If new bill passes a 72 hour hold will cause you big problems. Even if released.
That is an area that has room to push back I think.

Ideally it would go away because it is too easy to abuse, but if the state is determined to put it in there, make it have a sunset period.
Meaning you're only disqualified for 5 years or some such

Seen too many cases where someone has a partner gaslighting them and be told "They're the problem", so they check in and only later do they figure out they're being gas lit by a border-line/narcissist type
 
Probably

Almost anyone can red flag you, but red flag is a means to confiscate firearms. It has nothing to do with forcing you into a nuthouse.

Now forcing you into a nut house, someone has to sign off "You are a dangerous to yourself or someone else" (which many people can do), and even then in MA, it's not a commitment.

The whole pink slip thing in MA is a request for evaluation (not a commitment) during which they can hold you for 72 hours. You are still not disqualified. During that 72 hours the vast majority of people agree to a conditional voluntary status...meaning the legal process is almost done with you. You agree to stay for evaluation/treatment and give them notice that you intend to leave and at that time they can chose to pursue commitment (with a judge) or release you. Most everyone leaves when their insurance runs out.

If during that 72 hours you do not sign a conditional voluntary, it falls up the hospital to 1) release you or 2) make the case TO A JUDGE that you should be held. If the later is done and the judge says yes, then you are prohibited. Very few people meet the legal bar of "committed" to bar them from firearms.

Now some states (VA and CA if memory serves) specifically ask if you ever were ordered in-patient and changed to voluntary, but it's usually limited to something like "in the last 5 years". And to me, if a state is determined to make conditional stays grounds for denial, then it should have a limited shelf-life (5 years for instance). I think one state has a 3-strikes rule too...you can have voluntary stays, but once you go in a 3rd time, you're disqualified.

The is the issue I have with some towns in RI that do their own thing and ask for medical release form (which I think legally they're on thin ice). They can get that voluntary stay info and use it against you later. There is no time when the info is so old it becomes irrelevant. Also they're getting squishy with their wording in some towns and say "confined or treated for mental illness". Well Jeez that can cover almost anything....I was feeling depressed during my divorce...and went to a therapist for a year or two. I think the only thing that does not count is marriage counseling.

Sad to say I have way too much experience with this being an some EMT 30+ years ago and being married to a person in and out of facilities for 20 years (sometimes voluntary, sometimes NOT).
Now admittedly they were pretty anal about things back then in the 1990's. All you had to say in an ER was the wrong thing and you'd be going for a ride in the ambulance, but my buddy tells me they're a little more discerning now. An actual attempt or plan/threats to do harm is usual the litmus test
The new bill has some information that seems to disqualify folks who had a 72 hour hold. Not sure if they can do that if you agree to a conditional voluntary status.
 
The new bill has some information that seems to disqualify folks who had a 72 hour hold. Not sure if they can do that if you agree to a conditional voluntary status.
I saw that
Silly just silly.

Really easily abused or mistaken.

It shouldn't be a life-time prohibition. And screw this BS asking for a doctors statement you're "cured". Anyone know any docs in MA that either have or might consider signing a statement like that? I've never met any. Most are openly anti firearm. The one doc I did know who I thought might be little 2A moved to Texas cause he couldn't deal with MA BS anymore.
 
I thought we didn't do looney bins any more
Lots of the man. Just few "state" hospitals like there were 40-50 years ago. And most stays are voluntary or 72-hour holds and the person signs in during that time.

The Arbour system (that's like 8-10 hospitals)
McClean
The VA
Butler
Lots of them
 
Probably

Almost anyone can red flag you, but red flag is a means to confiscate firearms. It has nothing to do with forcing you into a nuthouse.

Now forcing you into a nut house, someone has to sign off "You are a dangerous to yourself or someone else" (which many people can do), and even then in MA, it's not a commitment.

The whole pink slip thing in MA is a request for evaluation (not a commitment) during which they can hold you for 72 hours. You are still not disqualified. During that 72 hours the vast majority of people agree to a conditional voluntary status...meaning the legal process is almost done with you. You agree to stay for evaluation/treatment and give them notice that you intend to leave and at that time they can chose to pursue commitment (with a judge) or release you. Most everyone leaves when their insurance runs out.

If during that 72 hours you do not sign a conditional voluntary, it falls upon the hospital to 1) release you or 2) make the case TO A JUDGE that you should be held. If the later is done and the judge says yes, then you are prohibited. Very few people meet the legal bar of "committed" to bar them from firearms.

Now some states (VA and CA if memory serves) specifically ask if you ever were ordered in-patient and changed to voluntary, but it's usually limited to something like "in the last 5 years". And to me, if a state is determined to make conditional stays grounds for denial, then it should have a limited shelf-life (5 years for instance). I think one state has a 3-strikes rule too...you can have voluntary stays, but once you go in a 3rd time, you're disqualified.

This is the issue I have with some towns in RI that do their own thing and ask for medical release form (which I think legally they're on thin ice). They can get that voluntary stay info and use it against you later. There is no time when the info is so old it becomes irrelevant. Also they're getting squishy with their wording in some towns and say "confined or treated for mental illness". Well Jeez that can cover almost anything....I was feeling depressed during my divorce...and went to a therapist for a year or two. I think the only thing that does not count is marriage counseling.

Sad to say I have way too much experience with this being an some EMT 30+ years ago and being married to a person in and out of facilities for 20 years (sometimes voluntary, sometimes NOT).
Now admittedly they were pretty anal about things back then in the 1990's. All you had to say in an ER was the wrong thing and you'd be going for a ride in the ambulance, but my buddy tells me they're a little more discerning now. An actual attempt or plan/threats to do harm is usual the litmus test

Your comments seem like they're based on a belief that the law "implements" well-intended common sense.

Setting aside the (real) INTENT of these profoundly unconstitutional laws, they're being used and mostly abused by morally corrupt humans that are working in their OWN best interest. These laws do nothing to prevent tragedies from happening and nobody ever thought they would, including the morons that passed them.

Laws punish. They do not and cannot prevent.
 
You know about when some psychiatrist hired by the defense tells the court that the inmate is now sane so the judge should now grant release and when released the dude goes on a killing spree? Well the judges in Mass ain't never gonna give you back your gun rights if you spend 72 hours in the loony bin. Mass murderers can be rehabilitated but not those evil gun owners. The ex girl friend is an expert at judging how crazy you are. The judge will take her word over any shrink's for sure. At the end of the day the ex girlfriend is no more able to predict the future than some shrink with a Phd.
 
So, I know a guy, a way crazy guy (by my standards, this is off the charts crazy to most of you folks). So, LONG story, but the relevant part to this interesting discussion is that it if you think someone is trying to get you committed, if you voluntarily check yourself into a rehab facility or the like, they can’t commit you while you’re there!!

Neither of us are lawyers but this smart, rich, crazy guy has a lot of experience in these matters. Probably the most interesting guy to talk to, ever!! Last I heard from him he was residing in PR (he’s not Puerto Rican) for a year plus in order to take advantage of some tax thing with businesses, I duno. Guy is smart!!
 
Your comments seem like they're based on a belief that the law "implements" well-intended common sense.

Setting aside the (real) INTENT of these profoundly unconstitutional laws, they're being used and mostly abused by morally corrupt humans that are working in their OWN best interest. These laws do nothing to prevent tragedies from happening and nobody ever thought they would, including the morons that passed them.

Laws punish. They do not and cannot prevent.


Reread please cause I think you read stuff that wasn't there. Where exactly did I say the law works for the best or is well-intended. Show me please.

My comments were based on nothing but my experience through prior employment and being married to a crazy person (that and my own research).

You'll note that I made no judgement/opinion other than those related to RI towns playing a little fast and loose with their own little fiefdom and so far they have gone unchallenged. Which I have done many times.

The rest sir is a soapbox speech you chose to bolt on to my statement process/procedure I shared as it related the question originally posed. Whatever opinion you form or share is your own and you are more than free to do so. But please do me the courtesy of not assuming because I did not offer one of my own that I am either in agreement or opposition to anything you said or believe. I simply tried to respond the guy who asked the question, not offer an opinion.
 
So, I know a guy, a way crazy guy (by my standards, this is off the charts crazy to most of you folks). So, LONG story, but the relevant part to this interesting discussion is that it if you think someone is trying to get you committed, if you voluntarily check yourself into a rehab facility or the like, they can’t commit you while you’re there!!

Neither of us are lawyers but this smart, rich, crazy guy has a lot of experience in these matters. Probably the most interesting guy to talk to, ever!! Last I heard from him he was residing in PR (he’s not Puerto Rican) for a year plus in order to take advantage of some tax thing with businesses, I duno. Guy is smart!!
Odd bit of trivia.

It's near impossible to initiate divorce proceedings while your partner is in a mental hospital too
Restraining orders...yes
 
Reread please cause I think you read stuff that wasn't there. Where exactly did I say the law works for the best or is well-intended. Show me please.

My comments were based on nothing but my experience through prior employment and being married to a crazy person (that and my own research).

You'll note that I made no judgement/opinion other than those related to RI towns playing a little fast and loose with their own little fiefdom and so far they have gone unchallenged. Which I have done many times.

The rest sir is a soapbox speech you chose to bolt on to my statement process/procedure I shared as it related the question originally posed. Whatever opinion you form or share is your own and you are more than free to do so. But please do me the courtesy of not assuming because I did not offer one of my own that I am either in agreement or opposition to anything you said or believe. I simply tried to respond the guy who asked the question, not offer an opinion.

No soapbox. Possibly one martini, but no soapbox.

Your comments were pitched in a way that validates the existing system.

In your first couple paragraphs, you dismissed red flags as a "route to the nuthouse". Fine, probably, in the framework of current law. But the OP talks about upcoming changes.

Then you (helpfully, btw) explain the general and usual process.


It's where you expressed some thoughts on how to refine the criteria beyond "committed by a judge". If seeing a therapist for depression is ok, is seeing a therapist for addiction, okay? Well then what if it's a sexual addiction? Fine, what if I have multiple personalities in there? Or the thousand other ways someone can be loopy?

Who gets to decide that mild depression is ok, but more severe (how severe?) isn't?

You portray the system as "basically" working. Just needs a few tweaks. It's not. It's broken. It needs replacement.

There is no "tweaking" of existing laws to make them more fair. It's very black and white. Until a person HAS violated the law, they can't be punished. Lawfully, anyway.

Yes. I read your post. And I politely disagreed. Fairly politely. I can be a little bit of a prick after one or two.
 
No soapbox. Possibly one martini, but no soapbox.

Your comments were pitched in a way that validates the existing system.

In your first couple paragraphs, you dismissed red flags as a "route to the nuthouse". Fine, probably, in the framework of current law. But the OP talks about upcoming changes.

Then you (helpfully, btw) explain the general and usual process.


It's where you expressed some thoughts on how to refine the criteria beyond "committed by a judge". If seeing a therapist for depression is ok, is seeing a therapist for addiction, okay? Well then what if it's a sexual addiction? Fine, what if I have multiple personalities in there? Or the thousand other ways someone can be loopy?

Who gets to decide that mild depression is ok, but more severe (how severe?) isn't?

You portray the system as "basically" working. Just needs a few tweaks. It's not. It's broken. It needs replacement.

There is no "tweaking" of existing laws to make them more fair. It's very black and white. Until a person HAS violated the law, they can't be punished. Lawfully, anyway.

Yes. I read your post. And I politely disagreed. Fairly politely. I can be a little bit of a prick after one or two.

Think you read more than I wrote. Annnd if you read the first part where I do offer an opinion I think you’ll see it’s in alignment with your outrage. I take issue with towns being able to do that. They’re not qualified to see my medical records. And treated for mental illness as (I thought) said was pretty wide hole.

You seem to be looking for a fight. Hope someone e obliques but I can’t put words that aren’t there.
 
In MA, even going to an in patient alcohol rehab gets one prohibited for at least 5 years in MA as it is considered a voluntary psychiatric admission. At least that is what I recall reading. Some states use that as a reason to ban for life. I don't recall if voluntary has any federal implications.
 
In MA, even going to an in patient alcohol rehab gets one prohibited for at least 5 years in MA as it is considered a voluntary psychiatric admission. At least that is what I recall reading. Some states use that as a reason to ban for life. I don't recall if voluntary has any federal implications.

Not what I was led to believe years ago. As of 6-7 years ago it was a nothing burger if it was voluntary and unrelated to a DUI. Most detoxes are not psych facilities now…it’s 5-7 days with maybe some benzodiazepines to make sure nobody seizes and that’s about it. Many are not even in a hospital. Federally I’m pretty sure as long as no judge is involved no one cares.

Not even sure a generic voluntary stay is prohibitive in MA since it’s really not traceable. No different on paper than getting a hip replacement. I don’t even recall being asked on my non resident app other than legal commitments. My memory could be off though.
 
Not what I was led to believe years ago. As of 6-7 years ago it was a nothing burger if it was voluntary and unrelated to a DUI. Most detoxes are not psych facilities now…it’s 5-7 days with maybe some benzodiazepines to make sure nobody seizes and that’s about it. Many are not even in a hospital. Federally I’m pretty sure as long as no judge is involved no one cares.

Not even sure a generic voluntary stay is prohibitive in MA since it’s really not traceable. No different on paper than getting a hip replacement. I don’t even recall being asked on my non resident app other than legal commitments. My memory could be off though.
When I lived in MA, I knew dozens of people who had been inpatient at Choate's rehab. That was about a 6 week program. Used to go to meeting there. (sober 41 years, no rehab stint.)
Some states check in state hospital records. Require a medical release for background check for permits. It may have been stopped after the VA started holding all veteran medical background check requests. This was under Obama. A backdoor way to to dent carry permits. Sheriffs got sued for submitting request to the VA as well. And the VA got a crap ton of calls from the senate.
 
@Reptile when I first commented I had only read Goal’s summary of the senate language which is quite good as usual.

However the Senate's language refers only to cases where law enforcement is involved. If for example they arrest/PC you and believe you have serious psych issues and send you off on a 72 hour hold, they’re required report that so it shows up on a background check (with scant details I might add). The way I read it you could walk into an ER and say you’re suicidal, get pink slipped and it has no effect.

If my understanding is correct this may not be as bad as I initially thought. It’s still not good, but not “anyone who is held on 72 hour order is now prohibited”
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom