Here's a question on "Mental Disability"

joeroket · Feb 2, 2011

Gene Beasley said:
It hinges on the word phrase 'voluntary commitment'. The two words comprising the phrase are diametrically opposed conditions. If you are voluntary, then you are voluntarily admitted and are free to leave at any time, even AMA (against medical advice). The other option is that you are committed, this is done by a county MHP (mental health professional) who will evaluate your danger to yourself or others. They can commit you for 72 hours at which time you appear before an administrative judge or commissioner who make the determination if you will be committed for up to two weeks, in which case you are not free to leave and are essentially civilly incarcerated. If this is the case, you are given a form explaining that your right to possess a firearm under Washington state law has been terminated under RCW 9.41.040. See the bottom of page 5 and several more pages on this document (pdf) which is much too long to quote here. It also includes the subsequent possible civil commitments of longer duration.

I have personal experience with this issue as my son's guardian. I vaguely remember them mentioning that it did not affect his federal right to possess a firearm, only his state right, but I don't remember enough to speak to it with any accuracy. [edit] Actually, there is a very good table on page 11 of the file.

If you did AMA out on a Voluntary, there's nothing to say that the facility might not involve the MHP's if they felt that you were a danger to yourself or others.

Gene, Nice to hear from you again. Thanks for the explanation. That clears up my question.

oneeyeross · Feb 2, 2011

amlevin said:
And yet we restrict drunks from driving on the basis that they are more likely to have an accident. Many are stopped while just "lane wandering" and haven't had that accident yet so isn't this a form of prior restraint?...

Difference here is that driving on public roads is not a right, it is a licensed activity. Public speech, worship, assembly, owning a firearm, not having soldiers quartered in your home, no warrant less searches, trial by jury, etc, etc. are RIGHTS, that shall not be infringed or impaired. Big difference in what the state can restrict between the two...

DEROS72 · Feb 3, 2011

To bear arms is a God given right reiiterated by the founding fathers in the Constitution. It cannot be given or taken away. Driving is not.
No and I mean no one has the the right to judge me in that manner.I am the only one that can judge weather I can own and bear arms.We can't live in a society where we judge people on what you think the may do someday.
If they start doing that the left will use that to deny everyone for some ridiculous reason or other.Anyone tries to judge me in that manner could feel the full impact of my rights.

sudden valley gunner · Feb 3, 2011

DEROS72 said:
To bear arms is a God given right reiiterated by the founding fathers in the Constitution. It cannot be given or taken away. Driving is not.
No and I mean no one has the the right to judge me in that manner.I am the only one that can judge weather I can own and bear arms.We can't live in a society where we judge people on what you think the may do someday.
If they start doing that the left will use that to deny everyone for some ridiculous reason or other.Anyone tries to judge me in that manner could feel the full impact of my rights.

Mostly agree except.....

The right to freely travel is a God given right. But that's a debate for another thread.

oneeyeross · Feb 3, 2011

sudden valley gunner said:
Mostly agree except.....

The right to freely travel is a God given right. But that's a debate for another thread.

The right to free travel is, the right to drive a car on a publicly built, public maintained road is a licensed activity.

I've never heard of someone being arrested for Walking Under the Influence. Oh, wait. Public intoxication is illegal....so, yes, you can be arrested for WUI.

joeroket · Feb 3, 2011

oneeyeross said:
The right to free travel is, the right to drive a car on a publicly built, public maintained road is a licensed activity.

I've never heard of someone being arrested for Walking Under the Influence. Oh, wait. Public intoxication is illegal....so, yes, you can be arrested for WUI.

I don't believe that simply being drunk in public is an offense. If I remember right you must be causing a disturbance while being intoxicated to be charged with an offense, that is unless the specific municipality/county has a code restricting being intoxicated in public.

amlevin · Feb 3, 2011

oneeyeross said:
The right to free travel is, the right to drive a car on a publicly built, public maintained road is a licensed activity.

I've never heard of someone being arrested for Walking Under the Influence. Oh, wait. Public intoxication is illegal....so, yes, you can be arrested for WUI.

joeroket said:
I don't believe that simply being drunk in public is an offense. If I remember right you must be causing a disturbance while being intoxicated to be charged with an offense, that is unless the specific municipality/county has a code restricting being intoxicated in public.

Public drunkenness used to be an offense. In recent years laws have changed to require other actions besides just being drunk before you can be charged with anything. Most drunks are merely hauled off to detox "for their own safety".

Drunks are now considered "Alcoholics" and alcoholism is a "disease" thus not an offense.

Old saying: "The difference between a drunk and an alcoholic is that drunks don't have to go to any meetings".

Here's a question on "Mental Disability"

joeroket

Regular Member

oneeyeross

Regular Member

DEROS72

Regular Member

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

oneeyeross

Regular Member

joeroket

Regular Member

amlevin

Regular Member