Utah Guns Forum banner

H.B. 202 Weapons Restrictions Amendments (Rep. Redd, E.)

6K views 20 replies 8 participants last post by  David Nelson 
#1 ·
According to H.B. 202 Weapons Restrictions Amendments (Rep. Redd, E.) (http://le.utah.gov/~2014/bills/static/HB0202.html):

This bill amends provisions related to the possession, purchase, transfer, and ownership of a dangerous weapon.

This bill:
. restricts a person who has been civilly committed to the custody of a local mental health authority from the possession, purchase, transfer, and ownership of a dangerous weapon.
 
#2 ·
This looks to me to be a minor change that has very little effect.

Assuming the bill passes with no amendments, this...

1) For purposes of this section:
29 (a) A Category I restricted person is a person who:
*snip*
(vii) has been adjudicated as mentally defective as provided in the Brady Handgun
46 Violence Prevention Act, Pub. L. No. 103-159, 107 Stat. 1536 (1993), or has been
47 committed to a mental institution;
... would be changed to this:

1 For purposes of this section:
29 (a) A Category I restricted person is a person who:
*snip*
vii) has been adjudicated as mentally defective as provided in the Brady Handgun
46 Violence Prevention Act, Pub. L. No. 103-159, 107 Stat. 1536 (1993), or has been civilly
47 committed to [a mental institution] the custody of a local mental health authority in accordance
48 with Title 62A, Chapter 15, Part 6, Utah State Hospital and Other Mental Health Facilities;
(Emphasis mine)

It seems to me to be a minor re-wording of the current statute. I'm not a lawyer, but I see very little functional difference in the change. Maybe someone was committed to a mental health facility that didn't qualify under 62a.15.6, so Rep. Redd found it pertinent to clarify...?

I dunno. Maybe someone in Rep. Redd's district could get some clarification on why he submitted this.
 
#3 ·
BTW, here is the link to 62A Chapter 15 Section 631 for perusal. Fun reading, eh?

In general, I stand firmly against any sort of involuntary commitment of a mental health patient... pretty much ever. That being said, I don't see this bill (HB202) making much of a difference from current ad hoc proceedings -- from my non-lawyer-ly reading, it simply clarifies what's already been codified -- but other opinions are certainly warranted.
 
#4 ·
UnderratedF00l said:
This looks to me to be a minor change that has very little effect....
The only substantive change to the current law would be the inclusion of the qualifier "civilly" to an individual's commitment.

Since a civil commitment is also known as an involuntary commitment, the amendment appears to restrict the provision to only those individuals who have been involuntarily committed. I believe that this would make voluntary commitments irrelevant to the provision.

Sooo, a good bill, maybe?
 
#5 ·
I don't like it but it does clarify civilly committed versus the just plain committed, which would include a self commit without the new wording, so that part is good.

But how about we instead push for consideration of the fact that a one time mental break down does not equal life long danger to self and others and should not result in life long loss of rights.
 
#6 ·
David Nelson said:
UnderratedF00l said:
This looks to me to be a minor change that has very little effect....
The only substantive change to the current law would be the inclusion of the qualifier "civilly" to an individual's commitment.

Since a civil commitment is also known as an involuntary commitment, the amendment appears to restrict the provision to only those individuals who have been involuntarily committed. I believe that this would make voluntary commitments irrelevant to the provision.

Sooo, a good bill, maybe?
Ahh, good catch. That would be a good thing -- I didn't even consider that in my reading of the bill.

DaKnife said:
But how about we instead push for consideration of the fact that a one time mental break down does not equal life long danger to self and others and should not result in life long loss of rights.
+ eleventy billion.
 
#7 ·
David Nelson said:
UnderratedF00l said:
This looks to me to be a minor change that has very little effect....
The only substantive change to the current law would be the inclusion of the qualifier "civilly" to an individual's commitment.

Since a civil commitment is also known as an involuntary commitment, the amendment appears to restrict the provision to only those individuals who have been involuntarily committed. I believe that this would make voluntary commitments irrelevant to the provision.

Sooo, a good bill, maybe?
That's also what I got out of it. It limits what TYPES of commitments can be used to strip RKBA. While it (probably) hasn't been abused in the past, this prevents it from being abused in the future. With the current national political climate, I consider this bill a big win.

That is, assuming 'civilly committed' means involuntary, which I don't personally know.
 
#9 ·
D-FIN said:
Does "civilly committed" or involuntarily committed require a court or judge to sign off though? Or does just a doctor 's order do?
Utah Code Section 62A-15-628 provides that:

(1) An adult may not be involuntarily committed to the custody of a local mental health authority except under the following provisions:
(a) emergency procedures for temporary commitment upon medical or designated examiner certification, as provided in Subsection 62A-15-629(1);
(b) emergency procedures for temporary commitment without endorsement of medical or designated examiner certification, as provided in Subsection 62A-15-629(2); or
(c) commitment on court order, as provided in Section 62A-15-631.
(2) A person under 18 years of age may be committed to the physical custody of a local mental health authority only after a court commitment proceeding in accordance with the provisions of Part 7, Commitment of Persons Under Age 18 to Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health.
It appears, then, that a 24-hour involuntary commitment may be required by the certification of medical or designated examiner, or the statement of a duly authorized peace officer; while a 30-day involuntary commitment may be required by a court order. I can't find any legal distinction between the 24-hour and 30-day commitments regarding the right to keep and bear arms.

Maybe, then, the amendment should provide firearm restrictions for "court-ordered involuntary commitments" instead of "civil commitments."
 
#10 ·
David Nelson said:
Maybe, then, the amendment should provide firearm restrictions for "court-ordered involuntary commitments" instead of "civil commitments."
That I could could get behind but even then I think there needs to be a pathway to regain rights based off new current analysis and court approval.
 
#11 ·
D-FIN said:
Does "civilly committed" or involuntarily committed require a court or judge to sign off though? Or does just a doctor 's order do?
David Nelson said:
I can't find any legal distinction between the 24-hour and 30-day commitments regarding the right to keep and bear arms.

Maybe, then, the amendment should provide firearm restrictions for "court-ordered involuntary commitments" instead of "civil commitments."
Any commitment requires a judges order. The 24 (or in some cases, 72) -hour holds are nothing more than examination periods, and are not considered a commitment of any sort. They do not require a judges order.

There seems to be some confusion regarding mental health records and how (or if) they're used when we purchase firearms. Please allow me to explain it as best that I can.

When we talk about commitments in regards to the RKBA, it's important to remember that, in Utah, Mental Health facilities and organizations don't have a way to report to the state. There is no way for a Psychologist to report that an individual is a danger to themselves and shouldn't be able to purchase a firearm -- except to do so through the judicial process. We can order a 24 (or 72) hour hold in certain cases, which can begin (and is required for) the commitment process, but there is no judicial record of those events except when they progress to a full commitment.

In the case of a psych hold on a patient, there very well may be a hospital record or report created... but BCI doesn't subpoena our medical records when we purchase a firearm (unless the 4473 changed since the last time I bought one... :shocked: ), and hospital records are not related to (or combined with) judicial records. Heck, some hospitals (IHC) have problems sharing patient information with other hospitals (Mountain Star)... what makes us think that they'd share it with the state?

Any "commitments" must be part of an individual's public record for it to affect the RKBA -- in this case, the judicial record -- for BCI (and the FBI) to get wind of them, and to be able to deny a purchase of a firearm.

I also want to stress that commitments, in general, are very rare. Holds, on the other hand, are quite common.

All of that being said, this is one area where current law is, in my mind, purposefully ambiguous -- certainly, it can be left up to interpretation -- and that's how our (and most other states') legislators seem want it.

And to clarify: no, I don't think that's a good thing. If we're going to restrict the mentally ill from possessing or purchasing a firearm, we must define what "mentally ill" is -- and that's a very slippery slope... which, incidentally, could be the reason why it hasn't been defined in the first place.
 
#12 ·
UnderratedF00l said:
Any commitment requires a judges order. The 24 (or in some cases, 72) -hour holds are nothing more than examination periods, and are not considered a commitment of any sort. They do not require a judges order....
That is how I hoped it was. It seemed so, in the Utah Code, anyway. My confusion was the code's various uses of the word "commitment" at Utah Code Section 62A-15-628.

Thanks for the insider's knowledge!
 
#13 ·
UnderratedF00l said:
In the case of a psych hold on a patient, there very well may be a hospital record or report created... but BCI doesn't subpoena our medical records when we purchase a firearm (unless the 4473 changed since the last time I bought one... :shocked: ), and hospital records are not related to (or combined with) judicial records. Heck, some hospitals (IHC) have problems sharing patient information with other hospitals (Mountain Star)... what makes us think that they'd share it with the state?
I don't recall any disclosures about sharing with the state in the HIPAA-required privacy statements, and I don't believe HIPAA has any exemptions for sharing with government.

It would be worth a more detailed look to see if my recollection/belief has any basis in reality. But I think it may actually be illegal under federal law for hospitals to provide that information to the state without patient permission.

F00l, do you know?
 
#14 ·
divegeek said:
I don't recall any disclosures about sharing with the state in the HIPAA-required privacy statements, and I don't believe HIPAA has any exemptions for sharing with government.

It would be worth a more detailed look to see if my recollection/belief has any basis in reality. But I think it may actually be illegal under federal law for hospitals to provide that information to the state without patient permission.

F00l, do you know?
I believe you're correct, Shawn -- but Obamacare could be changing some (or all) of that in the near future with laws/regs that aren't in play yet, and I don't know enough to comment intelligently on them. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
 
#15 ·
UnderratedF00l said:
I believe you're correct, Shawn -- but Obamacare could be changing some (or all) of that in the near future with laws/regs that aren't in play yet, and I don't know enough to comment intelligently on them. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
And we though passing the law to find out what was in it was bad.

Turns out we need to pass the law, and wait 5 or 10 years to fully implement before we find out what all is in it.

Thank you for your insights on HB 202. They are very helpful.

Charles
 
#16 ·
bagpiper said:
Turns out we need to pass the law, and wait 5 or 10 years to fully implement before we find out what all is in it.
+1

Sigh.
 
#17 ·
divegeek said:
UnderratedF00l said:
In the case of a psych hold on a patient, there very well may be a hospital record or report created... but BCI doesn't subpoena our medical records when we purchase a firearm (unless the 4473 changed since the last time I bought one... :shocked: ), and hospital records are not related to (or combined with) judicial records. Heck, some hospitals (IHC) have problems sharing patient information with other hospitals (Mountain Star)... what makes us think that they'd share it with the state?
I don't recall any disclosures about sharing with the state in the HIPAA-required privacy statements, and I don't believe HIPAA has any exemptions for sharing with government.

It would be worth a more detailed look to see if my recollection/belief has any basis in reality. But I think it may actually be illegal under federal law for hospitals to provide that information to the state without patient permission.

F00l, do you know?
But isn't that one of the "Executive Actions" the President has taken? Or at least threatened to take? To remove that restriction on the sharing of such information via Executive Order.
 
#18 ·
DaKnife said:
But isn't that one of the "Executive Actions" the President has taken? Or at least threatened to take? To remove that restriction on the sharing of such information via Executive Order.
According to the White House Office of the Press Secretary (admittedly, not always trustworthy) statement (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off ... guns-out-p) in January:

Some states have reported that certain barriers under current law make it difficult for them to identify and submit appropriate information to the federal background check system regarding individuals prohibited under federal law from having a gun for mental health reasons. Today, DOJ and HHS are taking steps that will help address these barriers.

--Some states have noted that the terminology used by federal law to prohibit people from purchasing a firearm for certain mental health reasons is ambiguous. Today, DOJ is issuing a proposed rule to make several clarifications. For example, DOJ is proposing to clarify that the statutory term "committed to a mental institution" includes involuntary inpatient as well as outpatient commitments. In addition to providing general guidance on federal law, these clarifications will help states determine what information should be made accessible to the federal background check system, which will, in turn, strengthen the system's reliability and effectiveness.

--Some states have also said that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act's (HIPAA) privacy provisions may be preventing them from making relevant information available to the background check system regarding individuals prohibited from purchasing a firearm for mental health reasons. In April 2013, HHS began to identify the scope and extent of the problem, and based on public comments is now issuing a proposed rule to eliminate this barrier by giving certain HIPAA covered entities an express permission to submit to the background check system the limited information necessary to help keep guns out of potentially dangerous hands. The proposed rule will not change the fact that seeking help for mental health problems or getting treatment does not make someone legally prohibited from having a firearm. Furthermore, nothing in the proposed rule would require reporting on general mental health visits or other routine mental health care, or would exempt providers solely performing these treatment services from existing privacy rules....
So, it appears that the executive actions that the president is encouraging are limited to voluntary and involuntary commitments to mental health services. Beyond that, the statement also admits that "[w]hile the President and the Vice President continue to do everything they can to reduce gun violence, Congress must also act." It appears that the president has gone about as far on this matter as he believes that he can legally, and he admits it.
 
#19 ·
DaKnife said:
divegeek said:
UnderratedF00l said:
In the case of a psych hold on a patient, there very well may be a hospital record or report created... but BCI doesn't subpoena our medical records when we purchase a firearm (unless the 4473 changed since the last time I bought one... :shocked: ), and hospital records are not related to (or combined with) judicial records. Heck, some hospitals (IHC) have problems sharing patient information with other hospitals (Mountain Star)... what makes us think that they'd share it with the state?
I don't recall any disclosures about sharing with the state in the HIPAA-required privacy statements, and I don't believe HIPAA has any exemptions for sharing with government.

It would be worth a more detailed look to see if my recollection/belief has any basis in reality. But I think it may actually be illegal under federal law for hospitals to provide that information to the state without patient permission.

F00l, do you know?
But isn't that one of the "Executive Actions" the President has taken? Or at least threatened to take? To remove that restriction on the sharing of such information via Executive Order.
From http://www.wsbradio.com/weblogs/jamie-d ... e-actions/ :
Here is the list of the 23 gun control 'executive actions' announced last year by the White House:

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

11. Nominate an ATF director.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.
 
#20 ·
I found some interesting information today that is related to this subject and I thought I'd share.

Previously, an involuntary commitment to a mental institution would create a record on the NICS system, which would deny that individual from purchasing a firearm. Apparently, last year, the Feds amended a rule allowing States to come up with their own procedures on how to handle this, and Utah re-he-heally took that to heart, creating a procedure and guidelines that are now in place to have that NICS record removed. It's outlined in 76-10-532.

This is a BIG deal.

I can't find any public record of this ever happening, but I would be very interested in hearing more about it.

Here's the section of law quoted for those on a mobile device:

(1) A person who is subject to the restrictions in Subsection 76-10-503(1)(b)(v), (vi), or (vii), or 18 U.S.C. 922(d)(4) and (g)(4) based on a commitment, finding, or adjudication that occurred in this state may petition the district court in the county in which the commitment, finding, or adjudication occurred to remove the disability imposed.
(2) The petition shall be filed in the district court in the county where the commitment, finding, or adjudication occurred. The petition shall include:
(a) a listing of facilities, with their addresses, where the petitioner has ever received mental health treatment;
(b) a release signed by the petitioner to allow the prosecutor or county attorney to obtain the petitioner's mental health records;
(c) a verified report of a mental health evaluation conducted by a licensed psychiatrist occurring within 30 days prior to the filing of the petition, which shall include a statement regarding:
(i) the nature of the commitment, finding, or adjudication that resulted in the restriction on the petitioner's ability to purchase or possess a dangerous weapon;
(ii) the petitioner's previous and current mental health treatment;
(iii) the petitioner's previous violent behavior, if any;
(iv) the petitioner's current mental health medications and medication management;
(v) the length of time the petitioner has been stable;
(vi) external factors that may influence the petitioner's stability;
(vii) the ability of the petitioner to maintain stability with or without medication; and
(viii) whether the petitioner is dangerous to public safety; and
(d) a copy of the petitioner's state and federal criminal history record.
(3) The petitioner shall serve the petition on the prosecuting entity that prosecuted the case or, if the disability is not based on a criminal case, on the county or district attorney's office having jurisdiction where the petition was filed and the individual who filed the original action which resulted in the disability.
(4) The court shall schedule a hearing as soon as practicable. The petitioner may present evidence and subpoena witnesses to appear at the hearing. The prosecuting, county attorney, or the individual who filed the original action which resulted in the disability may object to the petition and present evidence in support of the objection.
(5) The court shall consider the following evidence:
(a) the facts and circumstances that resulted in the commitment, finding, or adjudication; and
(b) the person's mental health and criminal history records.
(6) The court shall grant the relief if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that:
(a) the person is not a danger to the person or to others;
(b) the person is not likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety; and
(c) the requested relief would not be contrary to the public interest.
(7) The court shall issue an order with its findings and send a copy to the bureau.
(8) The bureau, upon receipt of a court order removing a person's disability under Subsection 76-10-503(1)(b)(vii), shall send a copy of the court order to the National Instant Check System requesting removal of the person's name from the database. In addition, if the person is listed in a state database utilized by the bureau to determine eligibility for the purchase or possession of a firearm or to obtain a concealed firearm permit, the bureau shall remove the petitioner's name or send a copy of the court's order to the agency responsible for the database for removal of the petitioner's name.
(9) If the court denies the petition, the petitioner may not petition again for relief until at least two years after the date of the court's final order.
(10) The petitioner may appeal a denial of the requested relief. The review on appeal shall be de novo.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top