US v. Rehlander ~ 1st Ckt on Mental Illness 922 prohibition

krucam · Jan 15, 2012

US v. Rehlander ~ 1st Ckt on Mental Treatment & 922 prohibition

First, H/T to NatoReplublic at TFL for the Heads Up.

1st Circuit, in a favorable Friday the 13th ruling, says specifically that short term, involuntary commitments, aren't going to cut it for a lifetime prohibition, particularly without proper proceeding to spell out consequences: http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=10-1812P.01A

Volokh reading on the ruling: http://volokh.com/2012/01/13/a-seco...ons-with-no-adversary-proceedings/#more-54716

This has the potential to be of benefit to Enos (MCDV) and Schrader (Misdemeanor).

The case originated in Maine, Pltf fell under ME Section 3863 statute, which "provides for temporary hospitalization following ex parte procedures--that is to say, without an adversary proceeding."

Lots of good case law in this one.

Heller now adds a constitutional component. Although the
right established in Heller is a qualified right, see note 3,
below, the right to possess arms (among those not properly
disqualified) is no longer something that can be withdrawn by
government on a permanent and irrevocable basis without due
process.

MDFF2008 · Jan 15, 2012

Sounds like a good ruling.

I believe keeping gun owners from adequate mental health care is a huge problem.

SkunkWerX · Jan 15, 2012

I thought due process went out of style with high buttoned shoes?

Good decision by the 1st Circuit. Looks like they "get it".
It may take a while, but this could open the doors to a host of other lifetime prohibition-of-rights cases.

john_bud · Jan 15, 2012

SkunkWerX said:
I thought due process went out of style with high buttoned shoes?

Good decision by the 1st Circuit. Looks like they "get it".
It may take a while, but this could open the doors to a host of other lifetime prohibition-of-rights cases.

Aw man! What am I going to do with 23 pairs of high button shoes? Next You'll say that spats are out of style like the constitution! Then I'll really be embarrassed!

Patrick · Jan 18, 2012

It's a good ruling that will help in many places. In essence, the court says that administrative-based denials of the right are unconstitutional. They focus on mental-health commitments where no right to challenge your interment is allowed (emergency procedures limited to three day periods), but they plainly say that Heller brings Due Process considerations to play.

This is a big deal that is likely going to be applied to a number of situations:

- DV / restraining orders where no adversarial hearing is held (you cannot defend yourself from the claims). Lautenburg would scream if he were smart enough to figure this out on his own.

- "Terrorist" Watch Lists that are based on non-adversarial rulings or administrative findings (Eff Off, Rep. King).

- Administrative denials based on non-judicial findings

- Denials based on the use of (legally prescribed) psychiatric drugs that are not in response to an adversarial commitment hearing. In other words...Prozac alone cannot be used to stop you.

- Also, the court says that any regime that denies a right permanently - without any practical way of petitioning your rights back - is highly suspect and almost surely unconstitutional. They specifically mention the fact Congress has never funded the process they set up, and said that the mere words are not enough to claim the system exists - it must be practically available and exercised.

Let's see what happens with it, but at least two big Congressional issues are affected: Lautenberg and the "Terrorist Watch List". So too any deprivation of the right that does not satisfy traditional adversarial Due Process requirements (and possibly extending into proportional punishements...in other words, speeding tickets cannot deprive you of your right no matter how legitimate the traffic court conviction might be).

Dogabutila · Jan 18, 2012

I like this. Good to know some people get it.

Patrick · Jan 18, 2012

We'll see if there is an appeal. It's a US Federal case, so depending on how the DoJ feels they may request cert. In their shoes I'd try to keep the loss limited to a single circuit rather than risk pushing it nationwide. Their lawyers are able to see the same possibilities we see. Curious to see if they double down on this.

Caseyaab · Feb 2, 2012

There are currently 21 cases in Maine based on Section 3863 (Blue Paper) mentioned above. These are all on hold until the Feds decide what they are going to do, appeal or let this decision ride. In the meantime these individuals wait to see what will happen.. the Blue paper DOES NOT commit anyone to a mental hospital, it ADMITS them to the hospital. A person that decides he needs some help can go to the emergency room voluntarily asking to go to a mental hospital for help. It can be a Social worker and a PA at the emergency room that writes a "Blue paper" to admit the individual. A JP can look at the document and certify that it is filled out [/U]correctly. the individual can now get transported to a mental hospital like they asked to do voluntarily, however since the blue paper was written and not necessarily with knowledge of that fact, the individual is now going involuntarily. They are being ADMITTED not COMMITTED, however Holder's ATF views it as being legally COMMITTED to a mental hospital even though the person asking for help never was told about the Blue paper and what it means. By the way Maine law does NOT consider a person to be a prohibited person because of this.

US v. Rehlander ~ 1st Ckt on Mental Illness 922 prohibition

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

krucam

Ultimate Member

MDFF2008

Ultimate Member

SkunkWerX

Ultimate Member

john_bud

Ultimate Member

Patrick

MSI Executive Member

Dogabutila

Ultimate Member

Patrick

MSI Executive Member

Caseyaab

Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Latest threads

Forum statistics

Share this page