Federal Farmer Posted January 14, 2012 at 05:21 AM Share Posted January 14, 2012 at 05:21 AM From Volokh.com. In today’s United States v. Rehlander (1st Cir. Jan. 13, 2012), the First Circuit revisited and narrowed its precedents related to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) — the statute that bars gun possession by people who had at some point been “committed to a mental institution” — in light of the Second Amendment: ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackTripper Posted January 14, 2012 at 02:21 PM Share Posted January 14, 2012 at 02:21 PM Very interesting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted January 14, 2012 at 02:41 PM Share Posted January 14, 2012 at 02:41 PM Illinois apparently makes no distinction even if one voluntarily checks himself/herself into an institution for treatment - the right is gone for 5 years: 430 ILCS 65/8 (e) A person who has been a patient of a mental institution within the past 5 years or has been adjudicated as a mental defective Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockman Posted January 14, 2012 at 06:57 PM Share Posted January 14, 2012 at 06:57 PM Illinois apparently makes no distinction even if one voluntarily checks himself/herself into an institution for treatment - the right is gone for 5 years: 430 ILCS 65/8 (e) A person who has been a patient of a mental institution within the past 5 years or has been adjudicated as a mental defective The may not make a distinction, but with a voluntary commitment, they would be violation your rights if such possession is still restricted upon your voluntary release. The question is does Illinois law allow for a judicial hearing where evidence may be presented and questioned? If they do Under this ruling they would still be able to "suspend" your rights pending the hearing. Unlike the current majority of lawmakers, we here for are intelligent and can recognize that the law of unintended consequences will kick in here. If a person knows that a voluntary commital will result in the revocation of his/her second amendment rights, it is likely they will not submit to such proceadure resulting in a potential for an even less desirable outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted January 14, 2012 at 07:24 PM Share Posted January 14, 2012 at 07:24 PM Illinois apparently makes no distinction even if one voluntarily checks himself/herself into an institution for treatment - the right is gone for 5 years: 430 ILCS 65/8 (e) A person who has been a patient of a mental institution within the past 5 years or has been adjudicated as a mental defective The may not make a distinction, but with a voluntary commitment, they would be violation your rights if such possession is still restricted upon your voluntary release. The question is does Illinois law allow for a judicial hearing where evidence may be presented and questioned? If they do Under this ruling they would still be able to "suspend" your rights pending the hearing. Unlike the current majority of lawmakers, we here for are intelligent and can recognize that the law of unintended consequences will kick in here. If a person knows that a voluntary commital will result in the revocation of his/her second amendment rights, it is likely they will not submit to such proceadure resulting in a potential for an even less desirable outcome. Bingo!! Happened to someone I know unfortunately - voluntary stay at a place and they sent his name to ISP who in turn suspended his FOID. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.