MA House Bill H 3569 - Firearm background check bill

cb1 said:
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?
Click to expand...

No, there was a court case about that. It went to the district court of appeals for somewhere in the North East, maybe NY or Maine. I am pretty sure that was made a case of where the person who was committed for observation involuntarily and he lost his rights. When the district court of appeals (one of only 9 in the whole US, I think) ruled, it was in his favor. Sorry I can not remember the specifics.
 
Reptile said:
No, there was a court case about that. It went to the district court of appeals for somewhere in the North East, maybe NY or Maine. I am pretty sure that was made a case of where the person who was committed for observation involuntarily and he lost his rights. When the district court of appeals (one of only 9 in the whole US, I think) ruled, it was in his favor. Sorry I can not remember the specifics.
Click to expand...

Even so that's a shitload of court time and expense which most people cannot fight through.
 
Very relevant to Deval's bill.

Here is it. Happened in Maine.

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=10-1812P.01A

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

NATHAN REHLANDER,

Defendant, Appellant.



No. 10-1831
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

BENJAMIN J. SMALL,

Defendant, Appellant.
____________________

APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

[Hon. John A. Woodcock, Jr., U.S. District Judge]



Before
Lynch, Chief Judge,
Torruella and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
 
The more I think of it, the more irritated I am that GOAL is supporting this in any form. I don't care how this election turns out. Without massive change at all levels GOAL will be a part of the problem.
 
Reptile said:
No, there was a court case about that. It went to the district court of appeals for somewhere in the North East, maybe NY or Maine. I am pretty sure that was made a case of where the person who was committed for observation involuntarily and he lost his rights. When the district court of appeals (one of only 9 in the whole US, I think) ruled, it was in his favor. Sorry I can not remember the specifics.
Click to expand...

Correct, rehlander but the problem is, that's not what the law says and I am not sure the CJIS will adhere to rehlander without being told to. Only time will tell rehlanders impact without further intervention in MA. Believe me, I am watching this one carefully.

ETA: Also, the MA state bar to LTCs is different than the federal bar. So the state can bar you access to an LTC effectively without having to meet the federal definition. In other words, there is a relief that one can use. If that relief is constitutional then becomes the question.
 
terraformer said:
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.
Click to expand...

Is it me or is tracking and enforcement of this inconsistent? I know someone (indirectly) who was voluntarily committed for treatment when they were younger. They still managed to get their LTC many years later.

-Mike
 
drgrant said:
Is it me or is tracking and enforcement of this inconsistent? I know someone (indirectly) who was voluntarily committed for treatment when they were younger. They still managed to get their LTC many years later.

-Mike
Click to expand...

Very easily can be inconsistent.
 
terraformer said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...

BTW: The link that reptile posted is not valid. I just looked up the CFR that defines mentally defective for the ATF and drug user is not in it.
 
GOAL doesn't support this bill as much as folks had assumed.

Ghost of the GOAL Communications Manager said:
On March 6, 2012 the Joint Committee on the Judiciary held a public hearing on Governor Patrick's "NICs" bill H.3569 "An Act Relative to the Transmission of Firearms Background Check Information" http://www.malegislature.gov/Bills/187/House/H03569. The premise of the legislation is to bring Massachusetts in compliance with the latest Federal laws regarding the National Instant Check System. There are a lot of concerns with the legislation both with its premise and its actual language and clearly GOAL is not supporting it.

The first and foremost concern is the legislation actually required? There is a lot of concern across the country that the need for the legislation may be overblown, primarily by our opposition. There is also the concern that the Obama administration is using the opportunity to push for state legislation to reach much further than the federal law calls for. We are also greatly concerned with giving the federal and/state government, neither of which can be trusted at this point, anymore authority over our civil rights.
Aside from the obvious general concerns, if it is somehow shown that the legislation is legitimate there are many concerns with how it is written. Below is a short bullet list of those concerns:

Section 3. Under Section 36A of Chapter 123 - "All reports of examinations (mental health) made to a court" This section implies that all reports shall be made available to the DCJIS and therefore to the "Licensing Authorities". Our concern is that these reports are not convictions or confinements and could be abused by the local authorities.
Section 4 and Section 6. Does away with the background checks to the department of mental health. We are not sure why this is being done.

Section 5. This section creates a subcommittee within the Firearms Licensing Review Board to act as an agent for those seeking relief who has formally been adjudicated as mentally defective.
The make-up of the subcommittee to include 3 members; 1 FLRB member, 1 designee of the Department of Public Health, 1 designee of the Secretary of Public Safety does not give confidence to lawful gun owners in the Commonwealth. With the current administration being so aggressive against lawful gun owners why would we trust them to fairly grant relief?
Another major concern is the level of evidence that a citizen must provide for relief. The standard set in the legislation is "clear and convincing evidence" which is a very high legal standard to obtain. Why is it that in order to do away with a person's rights a local authority only needs to use the arbitrary "suitability" standard, but in order to get relief we would be forced to use the highest legal standard.
Under the section that would grant citizens relief of disability is concerning. The term "may grant relief" appears in this section and describes a discretionary power. So even if a citizen were to meet the highest legal term, the committee can still use their discretion to not grant relief. As gun owners in the Commonwealth know all too well this authority has been greatly abused already.
The legislation would also allow the committee to promulgate regulations regarding the carrying out of the legislative purposes. The regulatory process is certainly precarious at best and we certainly don't want a stacked committee of three making up the rules.
The legislation also allows that committee to establish fees to cover the cost of the procedures. Any fees should be established by statute, not leaving it up to a small body of volunteers.
Section 7. The family member issue is a standing problem not necessarily related to this legislation. In past cases the courts have ruled that a brother-in-law from a deceased wife is considered family member. This allows tremendous far reaching rulings as to what domestic violence really is.

Section 9. We would like to make sure that the term confinement does not include those citizens who have sought temporary treatment on their own.
In short there are many, many concerns with this legislation. If the government is truly concerned with providing relief to its citizens perhaps they should pass GOAL's Civil Rights and Public Safety bill.
Click to expand...
 
When will we all finally say enough is enough? Really.


It is just disgusting what leeway we allow this state to get away with.
 
terraformer said:
Correct, rehlander but the problem is, that's not what the law says and I am not sure the CJIS will adhere to rehlander without being told to. Only time will tell rehlanders impact without further intervention in MA. Believe me, I am watching this one carefully.
Click to expand...
Yes. I have it on good authority that the state will continue to regard Section 12 commitments as statutory dis-qualifiers until they are forced to do otherwise. Remember Virgina Tech and think of the children.

I'm looking into the Section 12 issue, but it appears that it is frighteningly easy to have a Section 12 order issued.
 
Like I said previously, one phone call, one BS statement to police or rescue when they show up. Hell, it seems like if you get sent to the hospital by police or the ambulance for a psych eval (Read: a friend, family member or random person said you might be a danger to yourself or others and they came and snatched you up "for your own good") late night/early morning (think 11pm-3am) the on call DMH person is a lot less likely to talk to you, determine there is no issue and let you go because if they do they have to stay and observe you for a mandated period of time, and they want to go to bed. If they section 12 you, they get to go home.
 
There's already a law about being confined to a mental institution (or some such language) In MGL. WHY do they feel the need to tell thge Fed about it?
 
2278342 said:
...I'm looking into the Section 12 issue, but it appears that it is frighteningly easy to have a Section 12 order issued.
Click to expand...

"My husband want to divorce me and take all his money, and he was walking around the house carrying his gun and mumbling about how bad this world is... officers I am very scared that he is going to do something to himself or others... help please!"

[sad2]
 

Similar threads

Bill H.4139
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
Ron Jablonski
R
Colorado House Democrats Pass Bill Banning AR-15s and 9mm Pistols with Threaded Barrels
2
Replies
49
Views
1K
Amputee Marksman
Amputee Marksman
Florida House Passes Bill to Lower Legal Gun Purchase Age to 18
Replies
0
Views
93
Reptile
Reptile
Sen. Joni Ernst Introduces Bill to Protect Firearm Dealers From Biden’s Weaponized ATF
Replies
6
Views
257
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
CT: HB-5467 An Act Concerning Firearms Background Checks (2024)
Replies
2
Views
228
sbhaven
S
Back
Top Bottom