Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: wuold court order to therapy/institution as JUVENILE prevent from owning gun?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    va
    Posts
    2

    wuold court order to therapy/institution as JUVENILE prevent from owning gun?

    thanks have nice day
    Last edited by bruins17; 07-27-2013 at 07:49 AM.

  2. #2
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Depends on what the order said and what theplace was but based on what you said....I'd say he was prohibited.
    Last edited by peter nap; 07-26-2013 at 10:16 PM.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Peter, I disagree with you.

    The standard is "involuntarily committed" to in-patient (or more recently, outpatient) mental health treatment. Committment requires a finding that the person is a threat to themself or others or substantially unable to care for themself and that there is no less restrictive meeans of receiving treatment (meaning they will not go voluntarily). The new change in the law dealing with outpatient treatment stil has as a component part the involuntariness - folks will "agree" to be ordered to outpatient treatment as a way to avoid being ordered to inpatient treatment, but it is still via a court order which makes it involuntary on the part of the person so being ordered.

    Oppositional conduct disorder (my off the cuff guess at what the problem was) does not meet the criteria of being a threat to self or others. Juveniles are routinely "found guilty" of status crimes - behaviors that had they been committed by an adult would have/cause no legal impact but because the subject is under the age of majority society has decided to impose its will - by force if necessary.

    So the question to be answered is - was the juvenile committed, following a full confrontational committment hearing, or were they just ordered to residential treatment because their behavior did not comport with the social norm of an obedient, compliant child?

    I was in the trenches of "child welfare" back in the good old days when kids had far fewer rights and protections than even animals had. Still had to go through the full commitment hearing process (independent diagnosis by MD and licensed mental health professional, or by three (3) MDs, that the person was a danger to themself or others (or substantially unable to care for themself) and that there was no less restrictive means of treating them, and the kid (through counsel) could argue challenge the eveidence relied on to reach the diagnosis. On the other hand, juvenile court could "place" a kid in several sorts of residential treatment programs for no more reason than the parents and/or the court were tired of dealing with their oppositional ways - quite literally such things as talking back, refusing to do chores/purposely doing chores "wrong", staying out late, or hanging out with "those" types, just to name a few reasons.

    There were many times when I sought a J&DR Court order for a kid to be placed in residential treatment because the family could not afford to pay privately or insurance would not cover the time needed for the proposed course of treatment, as well as those cases where everything available via non-residential programs did not seem to be working. There were also two or three times when I sought to have a kid committed because they were a danger to themself or others. (By definition minors are all substantially unable to care for themselves, so that should never-ever be a reason for committing a juvenile to MH treatment.)

    The answer to the OP's question hinges, in my considered professional opinion, on the wording of the court order and any proceedings that led up to the order being issued. The OP needs to get a copy of all the paperwork associated with the juvenile court case and have it reviewed by an attorney versed in mental health law to determine if they were lawfully committed or merely ordered to residential treatment.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  4. #4
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Peter, I disagree with you.

    The standard is "involuntarily committed" to in-patient (or more recently, outpatient) mental health treatment. Committment requires a finding that the person is a threat to themself or others or substantially unable to care for themself and that there is no less restrictive meeans of receiving treatment (meaning they will not go voluntarily). The new change in the law dealing with outpatient treatment stil has as a component part the involuntariness - folks will "agree" to be ordered to outpatient treatment as a way to avoid being ordered to inpatient treatment, but it is still via a court order which makes it involuntary on the part of the person so being ordered.

    Oppositional conduct disorder (my off the cuff guess at what the problem was) does not meet the criteria of being a threat to self or others. Juveniles are routinely "found guilty" of status crimes - behaviors that had they been committed by an adult would have/cause no legal impact but because the subject is under the age of majority society has decided to impose its will - by force if necessary.

    So the question to be answered is - was the juvenile committed, following a full confrontational committment hearing, or were they just ordered to residential treatment because their behavior did not comport with the social norm of an obedient, compliant child?

    I was in the trenches of "child welfare" back in the good old days when kids had far fewer rights and protections than even animals had. Still had to go through the full commitment hearing process (independent diagnosis by MD and licensed mental health professional, or by three (3) MDs, that the person was a danger to themself or others (or substantially unable to care for themself) and that there was no less restrictive means of treating them, and the kid (through counsel) could argue challenge the eveidence relied on to reach the diagnosis. On the other hand, juvenile court could "place" a kid in several sorts of residential treatment programs for no more reason than the parents and/or the court were tired of dealing with their oppositional ways - quite literally such things as talking back, refusing to do chores/purposely doing chores "wrong", staying out late, or hanging out with "those" types, just to name a few reasons.

    There were many times when I sought a J&DR Court order for a kid to be placed in residential treatment because the family could not afford to pay privately or insurance would not cover the time needed for the proposed course of treatment, as well as those cases where everything available via non-residential programs did not seem to be working. There were also two or three times when I sought to have a kid committed because they were a danger to themself or others. (By definition minors are all substantially unable to care for themselves, so that should never-ever be a reason for committing a juvenile to MH treatment.)

    The answer to the OP's question hinges, in my considered professional opinion, on the wording of the court order and any proceedings that led up to the order being issued. The OP needs to get a copy of all the paperwork associated with the juvenile court case and have it reviewed by an attorney versed in mental health law to determine if they were lawfully committed or merely ordered to residential treatment.

    stay safe.
    You're probably right Skid. I wonder how old he was.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    You're probably right Skid. I wonder how old he was.
    OP's post suggests he was 14. What a wonderful age.

    And it's never about being right (it's a curse I must bear) but of being less wrong.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    va
    Posts
    2
    thanks
    Last edited by bruins17; 07-27-2013 at 07:52 AM.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    Depends on what the order said and what theplace was but based on what you said....I'd say he was prohibited.
    ?? He said nothing basically ..... I would advise him to go and try and buy and gun and find out.

  8. #8
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    ?? He said nothing basically ..... I would advise him to go and try and buy and gun and find out.
    And if he does show as a prohibited person, be arrested. Good plan!

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    And if he does show as a prohibited person, be arrested. Good plan!
    You don't get arrested by going to a ffl and doing all the paperwork etc and then getting denied ...

    Go get a clown suit for you now ... lol

    We can join the circus together ...

  10. #10
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    You don't get arrested by going to a ffl and doing all the paperwork etc and then getting denied ...

    Go get a clown suit for you now ... lol

    We can join the circus together ...
    Yeah you do David. Each of those forms is a sworn statement. Answer no when it's yes its both a State and Federal violation. Making a false statement on the 4473 is a Federal Felony punishable up to 5 years in prison.

    They don't always prosecute but they can pus the FBI notes it in it's files for investigation.

    As usual...You talk without having any idea about the facts.

  11. #11
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Just a couple:

    SKIPPACK — State police arrested Joseph Daniel Dolan on sale or transfer of firearms charges after he attempted to purchase a shotgun and was denied.

    State police said that they were notified last month that Dolan, 75, of New Britain, attempted to purchase a shotgun on March 13.

    The investigation into the matter determined that Dolan went to the American Arms and Ammunition, Bethlehem Pike, in Hatfield on March 13 and filled out the required paperwork to purchase a Mossberg 12-gauge shotgun. Dolan answered one of the questions fraudulently in order to attempt to purchase the firearm, state police said.


    Dolan was charged with sale or transfer of firearms and unsworn falsification to authorities.

    On April 14, Dolan was arraigned before District Judge Albert J. Augustine, Schwenksville. Dolan's bail was set at $5,000 unsecured bail and he paid and was released.

    SKIPPACK — State police arrested Matthew Manning on Tuesday on sale or transfer of firearms charges after he attempted to purchase a rifle and was denied.

    State police said that they were notified last month that Manning, 35, of Claymont, Del., attempted to purchase a rifle around 10:45 a.m. March 15. The investigation into the matter determined that Manning went to the Valley Forge Convention center and filled out the required paperwork to purchase a Russian rifle. Manning answered one of the questions fraudulently in order to attempt to purchase the firearm, state police said.
    ...........................................

    EAST PIKELAND - Police arrested a Pottstown man Monday after he allegedly attempted to purchase a firearm twice, in March and April, despite his having been prohibited from owning or possessing firearms.

    Robert James Harding, 43, of the first block of South Franklin Street, was charged with two counts of sale or transfer of firearms; and unsworn falsification to authorities.

    According to court documents, Officer Rick Fagley Sr. said he received a report from the Pennsylvania State Police on Monday, May 18, regarding Harding.

    The report, according to Fagley, indicated that Harding did attempt to purchase a firearm on March 9, and again on April 10, at French Creek Outfitters, 270 Schuylkill Road.

    The report also states that Harding provided false written statements to authorities, and is prohibited from owning or possessing firearms.

    Fagley said he conducted an investigation and determined that around March 9, 2008, Harding attempted to purchase a Ruger model P89, nine millimeter semi-automatic handgun from French Creek Outfitters, 270 Schuylkill Road.

    Fagley said he received documentation of a photocopied Pennsylvania drivers license belonging to Harding, and conducted an interview with a gun salesman from French Creek Outfitters.

    Harding filled out a Federal Firearms Transaction Record Part I - Over The Counter form at French Creek Outfitters. A question on the form asks, "Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?" to which Harding answered, "No."

    Fagley said that on April 10, 2008, Harding attempted to purchase a Keltec, model P-11, 9-millimeter semi-automatic handgun, from French Creek Outfitters.

    Harding filled out another Federal Firearms Transaction Record Part I - Over The Counter form at French Creek Outfitters. A question on the form asks, "Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?" to which Harding answered, "No."

    Fagley said Harding completed both forms, which identifies him as Robert J. Harding, from the (1st block of) South Franklin Street.

    "Harding's date of birth is July 17, 1964, and other personal identifiers matched the confidential medical records that were provided by the Montgomery County 302 court records for an involuntary commitment," Fagley said.

    Harding was arraigned Monday before District Judge Ted Michaels. He was remanded to Chester County Prison after Michaels set his bail at 10 percent of $15,000 cash bail.



    Last edited by peter nap; 07-27-2013 at 09:09 PM.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Yes, because they lied on the form. I never told the OP to lie.

  13. #13
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Yes, because they lied on the form. I never told the OP to lie.
    Yes you did.

    He's already said he was involuntarily committed. It's a yes no question. Yes and he doesn't get the gun, no and he's lied unless he can establish his commitment doesn't qualify.

    Even if he followed your advice and they didn't catch it on the instant background check, they may in the future. I think the Statute of limitations is 7 years on the Federal side and there is no limitation with Va.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,171

    Aren't you the one

    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    Yes you did.

    He's already said he was involuntarily committed. It's a yes no question. Yes and he doesn't get the gun, no and he's lied unless he can establish his commitment doesn't qualify.

    Even if he followed your advice and they didn't catch it on the instant background check, they may in the future. I think the Statute of limitations is 7 years on the Federal side and there is no limitation with Va.
    That told me having a battle of wits with an unarmed man is like being guilty of cruelty to animals? I no longer reply to his posts, especially the stupid ones like above.

    Oh, wait. I understand. You just needed a laugh and something to do at 230 am.

    Carry on! ;>)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •