MA House Bill H 3569 - Firearm background check bill

[economist]

Well, there are a lot of flaws in the system. But I am not convinced that those flaws logically make it a great idea for every person on US soil, no matter what their history or situation should have access. Call me whatever title necessary, but I am just not convinced.

I've got plenty of titles for you.

 

[MassMark]

I'm thumbing through the Second Amendment right now....hmmmm...sure wish OnTheRoad would send me my pocket Constitution...Wait a minute, (sorry this is taking so long)...woa...wait...nope...Sorry Wa Sai - couldn't find anything in there about "access"...

 

[drgrant]

I am not digging a hole, because I am not trying to get out of anything. I do not apologize for my views. Every issue has more than one side.

Yes, there are two sides. Those who are on the correct side of the constitution and those who are not.

-Mike

 

[BOBKATT]

Does anyone have any details on this, or why GOAL is considering supporting this flaming turd?

Because, GOAL is a smoke and mirrors style anti-2A organization that exists to fund itself.

 

[Boghog1]

see signature below

 

[kevin9]

Well, there are a lot of flaws in the system. But I am not convinced that those flaws logically make it a great idea for every person on US soil, no matter what their history or situation should have access. Call me whatever title necessary, but I am just not convinced.

You apparently believe that it falls into the realm of opinion as to whether a US citizen should be able to "access" firearms. Your opinion (or mine) does not matter. You and too many others seem to think that their opinion matters when it comes to others exercising their basic rights. That's the fundamental problem, a false view of what rights truly are, that they are somehow social or legal permissions not rights.

 

[exo]

How many sides do you see here?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

This.

I'm thumbing through the Second Amendment right now....hmmmm...sure wish OnTheRoad would send me my pocket Constitution...Wait a minute, (sorry this is taking so long)...woa...wait...nope...Sorry Wa Sai - couldn't find anything in there about "access"...

And this.

Yes, there are two sides. Those who are on the correct side of the constitution and those who are not.

-Mike

Ooh and this.

You apparently believe that it falls into the realm of opinion as to whether a US citizen should be able to "access" firearms. Your opinion (or mine) does not matter. You and too many others seem to think that their opinion matters when it comes to others exercising their basic rights. That's the fundamental problem, a false view of what rights truly are, that they are somehow social or legal permissions not rights.

Also this.

Seriously, this is something that was decided a long time ago by the founders. The 2nd amendment recognizes no limitation, end of story. Everybody has a right to defend themselves.

 

[economist]

For anyone who is troubled by lack of limitation on gun ownership, consider this. Every limitation we place on a select group is a regulation we all must endure. One popular (and existing) limitation is on ex-felons. These people, freely walking among us and having served their time (if any), are barred from owning guns in most cases. Now look how this is enforced. Every time you or I buy a gun from a dealer we have to fill out a form and wait for government to OK the transaction. The whole "gun show loophole" is just an argument about face-to-face transactions between non-dealers and apart from this background check.

This is what limitations buy us. Government approval is required to exercise a natural right, and the potential for all sorts of mischief by government is created (databases of purchases, lists of gun owners, you name it). Sure, you can try to limit what government can do, but in the end those limits are subject to abuse just like anything else.

The last thing any free person should want is to have government determining which of us are allowed to exercise our rights. It should not be the responsibility of the individual to petition government for liberty, but that is just what these limitations impose.

Freedom is ugly, literally and figuratively. A brief walk through Cambridge should convince anyone of that. But freedom is worth the cost. There will always be risks that concerns us and outcomes that are tragic. This is a natural consequence of existence. No limitations on liberty can remove this from human nature. Such limitations can, however, assure us of subservience to government and life of servitude in place of freedom.

 

[milktree]

Wa Sai: The problem is that "mentally ill" isn't defined consistanty, anywhere. Not in law, not in psych books, not in psych research, nowhere. People who deal with pysciatric patients can't even really definitively diagnose anything. All diagnoses are of the form, "meets X of the following Y criteria", where none of the criteria by themselves count as a diagnosis. Furthermore, *EVEN IF YOU HAVE ALL THE CRITERIA*, it's *still* not definitive, becaues "have the criteria" is deliberately vague. Everyone gets depressed occasinally, everyone talks to themselves occasionally, everyone gets manic sometimes, everyone has a short temper sometimes. Every one of the criteria for a diagnosis is subject to interpretation. Every doctor will interpret the same "data" differently.

Even if everyone is well meaning, it's far too easy to get stuck in the system simply because... well.. when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Psych. doctors only have one tool, the "mental illness diagnosis" tool. That's it.

So, yes, this is a problem *exactly* because it's way way too easy to be labled "mental defective" or "mentally ill" based on nothing more than having a bad day, a misguided EMT, and a psych ward intake supervisor who wants to be safe, rather than sorry.

 

[NuCentMAn]

besides, Darwin awards are yearly.

Hourly

 

[RichM]

... And for those that think restricting mentally incapacitated persons from owning guns, we ALREADY HAVE federal restrictions that make them prohibited persons.
GOAL's website says that they oppose this bill...

H.3569 AN ACT RELATIVE TO THE TRANSMISSION OF FIREARMS BACKGROUND CHECK INFORMATION Governor
Deval Patrick Joint Committee on the Judiciary Oppose

 

[Roy Rogers]

For anyone who is troubled by lack of limitation on gun ownership, consider this. Every limitation we place on a select group is a regulation we all must endure. One popular (and existing) limitation is on ex-felons. These people, freely walking among us and having served their time (if any), are barred from owning guns in most cases. Now look how this is enforced. Every time you or I buy a gun from a dealer we have to fill out a form and wait for government to OK the transaction. The whole "gun show loophole" is just an argument about face-to-face transactions between non-dealers and apart from this background check.

This is what limitations buy us. Government approval is required to exercise a natural right, and the potential for all sorts of mischief by government is created (databases of purchases, lists of gun owners, you name it). Sure, you can try to limit what government can do, but in the end those limits are subject to abuse just like anything else.

The last thing any free person should want is to have government determining which of us are allowed to exercise our rights. It should not be the responsibility of the individual to petition government for liberty, but that is just what these limitations impose.

Freedom is ugly, literally and figuratively. A brief walk through Cambridge should convince anyone of that. But freedom is worth the cost. There will always be risks that concerns us and outcomes that are tragic. This is a natural consequence of existence. No limitations on liberty can remove this from human nature. Such limitations can, however, assure us of subservience to government and life of servitude in place of freedom.

Bingo.

 

[CosmicIrony]

why not, we give them to police.

And you see how that works out

 

[MtRiverCharlie]

... And for those that think restricting mentally incapacitated persons from owning guns, we ALREADY HAVE federal restrictions that make them prohibited persons.
GOAL's website says that they oppose this bill...

http://www.wwlp.com/dpp/news/politics/state_politics/firearm-background-check-bill-supported

...the organization opposes the bill but would back it (if) “minor concerns” were addressed... the bill requires Massachusetts courts to report all mental health examinations to the Department of Justice, a broad requirement...could lead some gun sellers to block sales to people who present no public safety risk.

It's pretty clear they are worried about the ALL records part but SOME records would be fine and the .org would support it.

Fuddery

 

[Reptile]

Schizophrenics sure can party.

One of the best threesomes I ever had was with a schizophrenic.

Seriously though, are they only after people who have been confined and committed by a judge?

Would a person get on the list if they went voluntarily to mental hospital?

There was an appeals court not long ago which stated that a voluntary admission is not grounds for loss of 2a rights.

 

[terraformer]

Seriously though, are they only after people who have been confined and committed by a judge?

No way. They already have that. Now they are after people who were held on a 72 hr evaluation, people who called a suicide hotline and were subsequently "detained" for their protection. They have made it such that anyone seeking out help will pay for it the rest of their life.

Would a person get on the list if they went voluntarily to mental hospital?

Yup. Again, adjudicated mentally unfit is already being sent to the feds under a 2006 law. This would send a whole lot more.

There was an appeals court not long ago which stated that a voluntary admission is not grounds for loss of 2a rights.

Yup. Which makes this bill a complete sham and a slam dunk to fight because once they send the new data to the feds with the existing data on people who really are dangerous, what's going to happen is that they will pollute the federal database.

 

[Reptile]

I read in Mass General Laws that if a person was "confined", they need a doctors note to say they are not disabled in a manner that would prevent them from owning a gun.

Would that "doctors note" be enough to overcome this new law?

Wait till the firearms review board has to deal with this mess. They'll be backed up for years.

 

[Reptile]

See full text of bill and note my sources for mental health related definitions...

http://www.malegislature.gov/Bills/187/House/H03569

SECTION 1. Section 167A of chapter 6 of the General Laws, as inserted by section 8 of chapter 256 of the acts of 2010, is hereby amended by inserting the following paragraph:-

(h) Notwithstanding any general or special law or court order, including an order of impoundment, to the contrary, the department shall transmit to the Attorney General of the United States any information in its control required or permitted under federal law to be included in the National Instant Background Check System or any successor system maintained for the purpose of conducting background checks for firearms sales or licensing. No more information than is necessary for the purposes stated above shall be transmitted, and such information shall not be considered a public record under section 7 of chapter 4.

SECTION 2. Section 35 of chapter 123 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2008 Official Edition, is hereby amended by inserting after the word “days.”, in line 38, the following words:- The court in its order shall specify whether such commitment is based upon a finding that said person is an alcoholic, a substance abuser, or both, and this information shall be entered in the record to permit transmission to the department of criminal justice information services for the purposes and under the conditions set forth in the second paragraph of section 36A.

SECTION 3. Section 36A of chapter 123, as so appearing, is hereby amended by inserting after the first paragraph the following paragraph:-

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the administrative office of the trial court shall transmit information contained in court records maintained under this section to the department of criminal justice information services for the purposes of (a) providing licensing authorities as defined under section 121 of chapter 140 with information required or permitted to be considered under state or federal law for the purpose of conducting background checks for firearms sales or licensing and (b) providing the Attorney General of the United States with information required or permitted under federal law to be included in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System or any successor system maintained for the purpose of conducting background checks for firearms sales or licensing. The commissioner of the department of criminal justice information services shall determine which court records shall be transmitted for said purposes, provided that the commissioner shall require no more information than is necessary to be transmitted, and such information shall not be considered a public record under section 7 of chapter 4.

SECTION 4. Section 129B of chapter 140 of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby amended by striking out, in line 85, the words “department of mental health,”.

SECTION 5. Section 130B of chapter 140 of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby amended by inserting the following subsection:-

(h) There shall be, within the firearm licensing review board, a relief from disabilities subcommittee comprised of 3 members, designated from time to time, as follows: 1 member of the firearm licensing review board designated by the chair, 1 person designated by the commissioner of the department of mental health, and 1 person designated by the secretary of public safety and security, who shall chair the subcommittee.

An applicant who has been formally adjudicated as mentally defective in the commonwealth or committed involuntarily to a mental institution in the commonwealth, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 922, may petition the subcommittee for relief from the firearms prohibitions or disabilities imposed by federal law as the result of such adjudication or commitment.

The applicant shall have the opportunity to submit evidence to the subcommittee and to be heard by the subcommittee in support of the application. All hearings shall be conducted in an informal manner, but otherwise according to the rules of evidence, and all witnesses shall be sworn by the subcommittee chair. If requested by the petitioner and payment for stenographic services, as determined by the subcommittee, accompanies such request, the subcommittee shall cause a verbatim transcript of the hearing to be made. The subcommittee’s decisions and findings of facts shall be communicated in writing to the petitioner and to the licensing authority to which the petitioner has applied or intends to apply within 60 days of rendering a decision. The subcommittee shall maintain the records of its proceedings and of all materials submitted or considered by the subcommittee for the purposes of judicial review for a minimum of 3 years following the date of its decision. The records of the subcommittee shall not be considered a public record under section 7 of chapter 4.

If the majority of the subcommittee determines that the applicant has shown by clear and convincing evidence that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that granting relief will not be contrary to the public interest, the subcommittee may grant relief and direct the department of criminal justice information services to notify the Attorney General of the United States and to remove the record of the prohibition or disability from any database that the department of criminal justice information services, the commonwealth or the federal government maintains and makes available to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System or any successor system maintained for the purpose of conducting background checks for firearms sales or licensing.

In determining whether to grant relief, the subcommittee shall consider the circumstances regarding the firearms disabilities imposed; the applicant’s record, including the applicant’s mental health and criminal history records; and the applicant’s reputation developed, at a minimum, through character witness statements, testimony, or other character evidence. The applicant shall have the burden to produce evidence concerning these matters and the burden of persuading the subcommittee to grant relief. The subcommittee may promulgate regulations governing the application process and the conduct of its hearings.

The decision of the subcommittee shall be a final decision. An applicant who is denied relief by the subcommittee may, within 30 days of the receipt of the denial, seek review of the subcommittee’s decision by filing a complaint in the district court. The district court’s review of the subcommittee’s decision shall be de novo, and the court may in its discretion receive additional evidence necessary to conduct an adequate review.

The firearm licensing review board shall establish a fee to file an application for relief under this section, which fees shall be retained by the department of criminal justice information services.

SECTION 6. Section 131 of chapter 140 of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby amended by striking out, in lines 155-157, the words “The colonel shall inquire of the commissioner of the department of mental health relative to whether the applicant is disqualified from being so licensed.”

SECTION 7. Chapter 265 of the General Laws is hereby amended by inserting after section 13M the following section:-

Section 13N. Upon entry of a conviction for any misdemeanor offense that has as an element the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, the court shall determine whether the victim or intended victim was a family or household member of the defendant, as defined in section 1 of chapter 209A. If the victim or intended victim was a family or household member of the defendant, the court shall enter the offense, the chapter, section and subsection, if any, of the offense, and the relationship of the defendant to the victim upon the record, and this entry shall be forwarded to the department of criminal justice information services for inclusion in the criminal justice information system and for the purpose of providing the Attorney General of the United States with information required or permitted under federal law to be included in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System or any successor system maintained for the purpose of conducting background checks for firearms sales or licensing.

SECTION 8. Notwithstanding any general or special law or court order, including an order of impoundment, to the contrary, the administrative office of the trial court shall transmit any order of the probate court appointing a guardian or conservator for an incapacitated person under part 3 or part 4 of article V of the Massachusetts Uniform Probate Code on the ground that the person lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his or her own affairs, and any subsequent order terminating or rescinding such appointment, to the department of criminal justice information services for the purpose of providing the Attorney General of the United States with information required or permitted under federal law to be included in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System or any successor system maintained for the purpose of conducting background checks for firearms sales or licensing. The department of criminal justice information services shall transmit no more information than is necessary for the purpose stated above, and such information shall not be considered a public record under section 7 of chapter 4.

SECTION 9. Notwithstanding section 36 of chapter 123 of the General Laws, and for the sole purposes of providing licensing authorities as defined under section 121 of chapter 140 of the General Laws with information required or permitted to be considered under state law for the purpose of conducting background checks for firearms sales or licensing and of providing the Attorney General of the United States with information required or permitted under federal law to be included in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System or any successor system maintained for the purpose of conducting background checks for firearms sales or licensing:

(a) No later than 6 months from the effective date of this act, the department of mental health shall transmit to the department of criminal justice information services sufficient information to identify all persons known to the department of mental health who have been confined to any hospital or institution for mental illness within 20 years of the effective date or who are so confined at the time of transmission; and

(b) Thereafter, the department of mental health shall transmit such information to the department of criminal justice information services on a quarterly basis concerning individuals who have been so confined in the 3-month period preceding the date of each transmission.

The department of criminal justice information services shall provide such licensing authorities or transmit no more information than is necessary for the purpose stated above and such information shall not be considered a public record under section 7 of chapter 4.

SECTION 10. Sections 4 and 6 shall take effect 6 months after the effective date of this act.

------

Note this line:

An applicant who has been formally adjudicated as mentally defective in the commonwealth or committed involuntarily to a mental institution in the commonwealth, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 922, may petition the subcommittee for relief from the firearms prohibitions or disabilities imposed by federal law as the result of such adjudication or commitment.

18 U.S.C. § 922
(appears 3 times…)

who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has
been committed to a mental institution;

------

http://www.ttb.gov/rrd/tdatf391.htm


"Adjudicated mentally defective"

"Adjudicated mentally defective" has a VERY specific meaning to the ATF:

Quote:
The terms ``adjudicated as a mental defective,'' ``committed to a*

mental institution,'' and ``mental institution,'' as proposed in Notice*

No. 839, are defined as follows:



*** Adjudicated as a mental defective. (a) A determination by a*

court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person,*

as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness,*

incompetency, condition, or disease:

*** (1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or

*** (2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own*

affairs.

*** (b) The term shall include a finding of insanity by a court in a*

criminal case.

*** Committed to a mental institution. A formal commitment of a*

person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or*

other legal authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental*

institution involuntarily. The term includes a commitment for mental*

defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes commitments for*

other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a*

person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary*

admission to a mental institution.

*** Mental institution. Includes mental health facilities, mental*

hospitals, sanitariums, psychiatric facilities, and other facilities*

that provide diagnoses by licensed professionals of mental*

retardation or mental illness, including a psychiatric ward in a*

general hospital.


-----

"The term does not include a*

person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary*

admission to a mental institution."

 

[economist]

This is nothing but pre-crime. However one defines "mental defective", the concept here is that some people are more likely to commit a criminal act with a gun than others. Once we start limiting rights by statistical models and politically derived expectations the police state will be complete. People are criminals or they are not. They are convicted with due process and by a jury of their peers for an actual crime against life or property or they are free men. We can have no middle ground and remain free.

 

[xtry51]

There's no point to even having the panel for reversals because of this:

If the majority of the subcommittee determines that the applicant has shown by clear and convincing evidence that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that granting relief will not be contrary to the public interest, the subcommittee may grant relief

There is no way to satisfy that clause and no way in hell the doc who declared you unfit is going to go before a board and tell hem to give you a gun. No doctor could afford the legal liability he would then take on. Once they put you on that list you are never getting off of it.

"granting relief will not be contrary to the public interest" = communism = you have no rights in this state

 

[Roy Rogers]

This is nothing but pre-crime. However one defines "mental defective", the concept here is that some people are more likely to commit a criminal act with a gun than others. Once we start limiting rights by statistical models and politically derived expectations the police state will be complete. People are criminals or they are not. They are convicted with due process and by a jury of their peers for an actual crime against life or property or they are free men. We can have no middle ground and remain free.

Spot on. And the language of the bill, in one sense, merely provides a handy, expanded menu of reasons for which the state can further curtail firearms rights. Does anyone doubt the existence of a desire to make full use of such a menu?

It's incumbent upon all of us to remain mindful of the track record of those behind this bill, in the context of the Second Amendment and on other matters. To what degree is that record one of demonstrated concern for well-being of citizens and taxpayers? As but a single example, aren't we talking about the same state apparatus that imposed upon us a requirement to buy health care? Does anyone imagine for a moment that such a breathtakingly unconstitutional power grab is motivated by altruistic intentions? And when the aparatchiks are concocting such legislative and regulatory mandates, do they hope to entice the citizenry into voluntary compliance? Or do they act with the expectation that compliance is mandatory, to be coerced if necessary by force, backed up at the very least implicitly with--say it ain't so--a gun?

When it comes to our Second Amendment rights, what gives us any reason to suspect that those behind the bill in question are trying to do the right thing? There's a recent thread on this forum about an unfortunate aspiring LTC applicant in Dartmouth who waited 6 months just for an appointment with his PD. Outrageous? Of course. Where does responsibility lie? With Beacon Hill. That is where the current licensing regime was concocted, and where it could easily be remedied--if only there were desire for a remedy. Let's ask ourselves, does a 6-month wait in Dartmouth bother those on Beacon Hill? Or does it please them? If they were truly supportive of our Second Amendment rights and the well-being of the public, there would be other measures underway even as we speak. Measures to reform the licensing morass. Measures to eliminate restrictions on models of handguns that dealers may sell. Measures to reopen the state to mail order sales of ammunition. Measures to broaden firearms ownership, for instance by encouraging programs to bring more kids into shooting sports. These and other measures would be telling. How many are in the works? What's that sound--crickets?

In the instance of the bill in question, is there any reason to suppose that those primping for it, and who would be interpreting and enforcing it, have in this singular instance turned over a new leaf and are, for once, trying (and able) to do the right thing?

 

[terraformer]

I read in Mass General Laws that if a person was "confined", they need a doctors note to say they are not disabled in a manner that would prevent them from owning a gun.

Would that "doctors note" be enough to overcome this new law?

Wait till the firearms review board has to deal with this mess. They'll be backed up for years.

No. Federal law doesn't allow for someone to gain their rights back because the bar to losing them is rather high.

An applicant who has been formally adjudicated as mentally defective in the commonwealth or committed involuntarily to a mental institution in the commonwealth, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 922, may petition the subcommittee for relief from the firearms prohibitions or disabilities imposed by federal law as the result of such adjudication or commitment.

This is a fantasy. The FLRB can not remove the federal mental health disability.

 

[Reptile]

No. Federal law doesn't allow for someone to gain their rights back because the bar to losing them is rather high.



This is a fantasy. The FLRB can not remove the federal mental health disability.

So I guess the state is going to (in this bill) enforce the same regulations that are already on the books on the federal level. Is that correct?

 

[terraformer]

So I guess the state is going to (in this bill) enforce the same regulations that are already on the books on the federal level. Is that correct?

No, that was already done years ago. No, this is to expand greatly the number of people federally prohibited by claiming they fit the definition of mentally defective but without actually having them fit that definition.

 

[Reptile]

No, that was already done years ago. No, this is to expand greatly the number of people federally prohibited by claiming they fit the definition of mentally defective but without actually having them fit that definition.

Forgive my confusion...

In the exact wording of the bill - which I posted --- where does it say they are going to change the official definition of "mentally defective"? It is quite clear (to me anyway) that they are using the common definition that the ATF uses.

I do not support this bill and see it as a power grab. However, I do not see how a person who has gone "voluntarily" to a mental health facility can get caught up in this.

Believe me, I respect and support Comm2A- I just need some clarification on this.

 

[terraformer]

Here is one example:

SECTION 2. Section 35 of chapter 123 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2008 Official Edition, is hereby amended by inserting after the word “days.”, in line 38, the following words:- The court in its order shall specify whether such commitment is based upon a finding that said person is an alcoholic, a substance abuser, or both, and this information shall be entered in the record to permit transmission to the department of criminal justice information services for the purposes and under the conditions set forth in the second paragraph of section 36A.

Mentally defective != alcoholic. Where in the definition of mentally defective do you see alcoholic?

The relief is not federally possible so these commitments become lifetime bars. More importantly, I already know the state tracks and bars people from getting licenses on voluntary commitments or non court ordered commitments.

ETA: I see where the issue is. ATF's administrative definition of mentally defective. They are now including drug users. That is not authorized by the law. Drug users are committed to treatment centers and not mental institutions. The law is clear it's mental institutions.

 

[Reptile]

Here is one example:


Mentally defective != alcoholic. Where in the definition of mentally defective do you see alcoholic?

The relief is not federally possible so these commitments become lifetime bars. More importantly, I already know the state tracks and bars people from getting licenses on voluntary commitments or non court ordered commitments.

I see now. I skipped over the alcoholic part, but I get it now.

If there was a case in Mass about people not getting a license due to a voluntary commitment, like you said, that should be a slam dunk if you take it to court.

ANy such cases in the works?

 

[terraformer]

I see now. I skipped over the alcoholic part, but I get it now.

If there was a case in Mass about people not getting a license due to a voluntary commitment, like you said, that should be a slam dunk if you take it to court.

ANy such cases in the works?

No comment. And it's not the slam dunk you think it is. There is a fig leaf of relief on the state side. But it will be a slam dunk once that fig leaf is removed which I think it will be in short order.

 

[Reptile]

No comment. And it's not the slam dunk you think it is. There is a fig leaf of relief on the state side. But it will be a slam dunk once that fig leaf is removed which I think it will be in short order.

All the reason to support Comm2A.

 

[cb1]

An applicant who has been formally adjudicated as mentally defective in the commonwealth or committed involuntarily to a mental institution in the commonwealth, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 922, may petition the subcommittee for relief from the firearms prohibitions or disabilities imposed by federal law as the result of such adjudication or commitment.

So if I were to be Section 12'd, (MGL Ch. 123, Section 12) then released after the three day observation period, would this count as an involuntary commitment?