Legal ownership question

imported post

Repeater wrote:

"... the above is not completely correct ..."

Uh, what part of User's reply would that be, Mike?

From the Code of Virginia:

Purchase, possession or transportation of firearm by persons involuntarily admitted or ordered to outpatient treatment; penalty.

A. It shall be unlawful for any person involuntarily admitted to a facility or ordered to mandatory outpatient treatment pursuant to § 19.2-169.2, involuntarily admitted to a facility or ordered to mandatory outpatient treatment as the result of a commitment hearing pursuant to Article 5 (§ 37.2-814 et seq.) of Chapter 8 of Title 37.2, or who was the subject of a temporary detention order pursuant to § 37.2-809 and subsequently agreed to voluntary admission pursuant to § 37.2-805 to purchase, possess or transport a firearm. A violation of this subsection shall be punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor.

Click to expand...

Most of user's reply is incorrect - the "she" in this case was treated in Germany, not pursuant to any of the Va. code sections you cite above which would then trigger a Virginia disability on firearm owership; user's statements thatvoluntarily submitting yourself to treatment gets you disabled is flatly not true except in the narrow case you cite to; the Cho example is wrong under current law, as well as the Kaine royal decree era pre-codification -ordering a person to outpatient treatment is the same as comitting them to a "facility" hence disabling their gun rights.

The most disturbing part of user's post is the assertion that people like Cho who refuse to follow treatment orders issued by a Virginia judge are not disabled from owning guns but that anybody who voluntarily submits to some mentl health treatment is disabled - this is exactly backwards.

imported post

That raises a number of interesting points. I do often talk off the top of my head in what I consider an informal "hearing" - if I had to prepare for an online forum the same way I do for court, well, I wouldn't do it. But I recognize I may be wrong, and am happy to be corrected.

For example, in the Cho controversy, I was under the impression that the requirement that he submit to treatment was a condition of a bond or parole; not an order. Those are different, and a person who chooses to disobey a condition of bond or parole has the option of having the bond or parole revoked; it's essentially his choice. That's not the same as an order that he do something (which in the Cho case, as I understand it, would have required a great deal more legal process than was obtained.)

I had a case not too long ago, in which the mental health issues were a significant part, so the subject is not totally foreign to me. Part of the problem is that I was summarizing several related statutes. But as I say, I may be wrong, and I'll check my conclusions and let you know what I find out.

imported post

Here's an excerpt from the U.S. Code, the provision cited applies irrespective of the place wherein the adjudication or committment occurred (emphasis added).

TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 44 - FIREARMS
Sec. 922. Unlawful acts
...
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person -
...
(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;
...

to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

imported post

Mike wrote:

Repeater wrote:

"... the above is not completely correct ..."

Uh, what part of User's reply would that be, Mike?

From the Code of Virginia:

Purchase, possession or transportation of firearm by persons involuntarily admitted or ordered to outpatient treatment; penalty.

A. It shall be unlawful for any person involuntarily admitted to a facility or ordered to mandatory outpatient treatment pursuant to § 19.2-169.2, involuntarily admitted to a facility or ordered to mandatory outpatient treatment as the result of a commitment hearing pursuant to Article 5 (§ 37.2-814 et seq.) of Chapter 8 of Title 37.2, or who was the subject of a temporary detention order pursuant to § 37.2-809 and subsequently agreed to voluntary admission pursuant to § 37.2-805 to purchase, possess or transport a firearm. A violation of this subsection shall be punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor.

Click to expand...

... The most disturbing part of user's post is the assertion that people like Cho who refuse to follow treatment orders issued by a Virginia judge are not disabled from owning guns but that anybody who voluntarily submits to some mentl health treatment is disabled - this is exactly backwards.

Click to expand...

In fact, anyone who voluntarily submits to some mental health treatment [in a residential facility] is disabled with respect to obtaining a Virginia CHP:

[SNIP]

E. The following persons shall be deemed disqualified from obtaining a permit:

...

18. An individual who has received mental health treatment or substance abuse treatment in a residential setting within five years prior to the date of his application for a concealed handgun permit.

Click to expand...

Note the subdivision makes no distinction between voluntary and involuntary admission to such treatment. The legal disability lasts five years.

Thus, a Virginian who really ought to seek treatment -- but doesn't -- will have right to obtain a CHP, while another Virginian who sought treatment -- and was successful -- will effectively be punished for having done so. Agreed, it's backwards -- and discriminatory.

Part of Milbars question was: "Will this bar her from being able to apply for a CCW ... ?"

Fortunately, in her case, he did not indicate that she was ever in such a facility.

imported post

Repeater wrote:

Mike wrote:

Repeater wrote:

"... the above is not completely correct ..."

Uh, what part of User's reply would that be, Mike?

From the Code of Virginia:

Purchase, possession or transportation of firearm by persons involuntarily admitted or ordered to outpatient treatment; penalty.

A. It shall be unlawful for any person involuntarily admitted to a facility or ordered to mandatory outpatient treatment pursuant to § 19.2-169.2, involuntarily admitted to a facility or ordered to mandatory outpatient treatment as the result of a commitment hearing pursuant to Article 5 (§ 37.2-814 et seq.) of Chapter 8 of Title 37.2, or who was the subject of a temporary detention order pursuant to § 37.2-809 and subsequently agreed to voluntary admission pursuant to § 37.2-805 to purchase, possess or transport a firearm. A violation of this subsection shall be punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor.

Click to expand...

... The most disturbing part of user's post is the assertion that people like Cho who refuse to follow treatment orders issued by a Virginia judge are not disabled from owning guns but that anybody who voluntarily submits to some mentl health treatment is disabled - this is exactly backwards.

Click to expand...

In fact, anyone who voluntarily submits to some mental health treatment [in a residential facility] is disabled with respect to obtaining a Virginia CHP:

[SNIP]

E. The following persons shall be deemed disqualified from obtaining a permit:

...

18. An individual who has received mental health treatment or substance abuse treatment in a residential setting within five years prior to the date of his application for a concealed handgun permit.

Click to expand...

Note the subdivision makes no distinction between voluntary and involuntary admission to such treatment. The legal disability lasts five years.

Thus, a Virginian who really ought to seek treatment -- but doesn't -- will have right to obtain a CHP, while another Virginian who sought treatment -- and was successful -- will effectively be punished for having done so. Agreed, it's backwards -- and discriminatory.

Part of Milbars question was: "Will this bar her from being able to apply for a CCW ... ?"

Fortunately, in her case, he did not indicate that she was ever in such a facility.

Click to expand...

What does "in a residential setting" mean? Is that a rooming house setting or a residential neighborhood?

imported post

peter nap wrote:

What does "in a residential setting" mean? Is that a rooming house setting or a residential neighborhood?

Click to expand...

Essentially, it refers to a "residential treatment facility" -- as you can find on google.

There are many around the country, and in Virginia.

For example, see Frontier Health.

imported post

Thanks repeater!
I always wondered about the wording. Seemed silly.

imported post

peter nap wrote:

Thanks repeater!
I always wondered about the wording. Seemed silly.

Click to expand...

"residential treatment facility"... very easy definition:

If you spent the night ina nut house, you're DQ'd... period.

Spent the night in the pokey (cross-bar motel)?

Not necessarily DQ'd... depends on the charges.

I know a guy that spent the night in the pokey after having consumed more than he should have, but was never charged with anything. They gave him a cup of coffee, a ride back to his car and his keys without any paperwork.

:idea:

imported post

MSC 45ACP wrote:

peter nap wrote:

Thanks repeater!
I always wondered about the wording. Seemed silly.

Click to expand...

"residential treatment facility"... very easy definition:

If you spent the night ina nut house, you're DQ'd... period.

Spent the night in the pokey (cross-bar motel)?

Not necessarily DQ'd... depends on the charges.

I know a guy that spent the night in the pokey after having consumed more than he should have, but was never charged with anything. They gave him a cup of coffee, a ride back to his car and his keys without any paperwork.

:idea:

Click to expand...

Know a guy who spent the night in the old Yorktown basement jail, had cold beans and franks for breakfast, went before the judge and found guilty of trespass (was asleep in a car), paid a cash fine - no record of any of it to be found ever.

Yata hey