Jump to content


Photo

ALTON C. FRANKLIN vs US (AGUS, ATFE, and FBI)

Mental Health Gun Rights 18 U.S.C. 922

  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 kevinmcc

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,199 posts
  • Joined: 16-December 12

Posted 23 December 2017 - 11:26 AM

Federal court has ruled that states and the federal government can not ban a persons right to firearms for involuntary committal without due process under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4).

Law Firm's Blog
 
Court Decision
 
This means Illinois's mental health denial of FOID should be void on same grounds.

Edited by kevinmcc, 23 December 2017 - 11:27 AM.

Life Member, Gun Owners of America
Life Member, NRA
Life Member, Oath Keepers
Life Member, Second Amendment Foundation

#2 chislinger

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,818 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 23 December 2017 - 01:47 PM

It should be, but either this would have to go all the way to SCOTUS or we get a 7th Circuit ruling for Illinois before it has any legal meaning here.
"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#3 lawman

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 593 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 14

Posted 23 December 2017 - 04:06 PM

According to the Order, the 1st, 5th, and 8th Circuits are all in agreement that section 922(g)4 does not apply for involuntary evaluations.  He was never committed to a mental institution, but merely held for up to 120 hours for an evaluation.  He was released about 24 hours later with no treatment, no commitment, and no need for treatment.



#4 NotCommittedOrAdjudicated

  • Members
  • 3 posts
  • Joined: 25-December 17

Posted 25 December 2017 - 07:04 PM

First of all, I want to make it clear I am not on here to argue with anyone. I am also not feeling the need to prove anything. I simply came across your site, when I did A search for my recent court case, regarding the 922(g)(4) prohibition, which was based upon NO due process, and even LESS logic, when the facts of my statements, and Dr. Pluto's half-arsed actions/words are factored into the equation, AND reviewed by a Reasonable person. I saw my case is being discussed here, and wanted to add a comment or two.
Also, to correct the record a bit, if I remember correctly, I was barely held for 12 hours, though i'd have to look over records to be sure. Also, even the Dr. at the holding facility questioned why I was there, to me, during an intake interview, though that is not in the record.
As another note, I also have had to take the MMPI2 during the course of my fight, and even the Psychologist questioned why I was ever placed into a Mental Health Facility, this being after hearing what happened, AND reading the corresponding documents so she knew the details as well.
Had "Dr." (term used loosely imho) Pluto, not constantly asked me questions, then run out of the room even before I had the chance to complete an answer, perhaps her ignorant decision as to 302'ing me wouldnot have occurred. Her constant leaving, then asking, then leaving during my trying to answer, coupled with her almost complete lack of attentiveness to anything occurring or being said to her, was part of the MAIN ISSUE, which resulted in my ending up in an Ambulance, and on my way to a frikken Inpatient setting. The same inpatient hospital, from which I was released, the next day, and in my best recollection, around 12 hrs approximate time, or less. However, again, it was such a small amount of time, that 24 hrs is sufficient to still state that I was NOT "adjusicated," not "committed," in any legal sense.
Also, to note, the Honorable Kim Gibson did not argue as to whether the hospital met the definition of a mental health facility, but rather that I was NOT Committed, not Adjudicated a Mental Defective by anyone meeting the criteria of a Court, Board, or Other Authority, which would allow for Lawful Prohibition, continually, for an order clearly intending to diagnose, and screen, for serious mental health conditions, which I certainly did not have. I explained this to Dr. Pluto, and the "Officer," numerous times, as to what had ACTUALLY occurred, and that I SPECIFICALLY had NO Suicidal Ideations, nor desire to harm others. Neither would listen.
Further, because PA would only grant me a State Relief, and the U.S. would not be bound by such State Relief, because the PA Judges cannot grant a True "Expungement," coupled with the fact that PA's Plan to allow a path of Relief which met the Federal Government's criteria was NOT accepted by the U.S. Government, met I was literally stuck in a Limbo, or Catch 22 state, where the Prohibiting State granted relief from prohibition, yet the Government refused to acknowledge said "Relief," and then I was supposed to be indefinitely Prohibited because of no path to TRUE RELIEF existing.
In the end, this is where we are, and now I await possible next steps, by whomever, on behalf of the Government. If PA would have amended their Plan, and met the federal criteria, I could have accomplished this relief through it. If PA allowed Judges whom can grant state relief, to also grant True Expungements, I could have accomplished obtaining true Relief through that means. Or, if the Federal Government acknowledged the logic that the Original Prohibiting Agency, once determining Prohibitions are not applicable, should not then continue to affect said Rights, via Prohibition, I could also have obtained Relief through that path.
I just felt the need to briefly comment here, after my search turned up this, and a few more places where my case is being mentioned. I hope it helps others whom find themselves in a similar situaiton. Though this is not binding on other circuits, or venues, it certainly does have broader applications, and certainly uses as Grounds for certain actions/claims.
Have a good evening...
A.F.

I edited to add stuff I forgot to, and correct typing errors...it happens.

Edited by NotCommittedOrAdjudicated, 25 December 2017 - 07:16 PM.


#5 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Admin
  • 18,726 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 25 December 2017 - 07:12 PM

Thank you for adding to the discussion, and welcome.

.
Link to ILGA House Audio/Video..........Link to ILGA Senate Audio/Video ..........Advanced Digital Media Link ..........Blue Room Stream Link

Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. (Ephesians 4:31)

 

On 5/25/2017, Superintendent Eddie Johnson predicted a 50% reduction is Chicago violence within 3 years of SB1722 becoming law.  The bill was signed into law on 6/23/2017. The clock is now ticking.


#6 NotCommittedOrAdjudicated

  • Members
  • 3 posts
  • Joined: 25-December 17

Posted 25 December 2017 - 07:33 PM

Thank you for adding to the discussion, and welcome.


Thank you. Also, for the record, if anyone is looking for a Very Good attorney for this type of matter, Joshua Prince's Firm is one I would recommend...for obvious reasons. He is experienced, and goes right to the heartof the matters, and fights for what is right. I'd give his Firm a try. Of course, i'm a little biased, considering his wins for me, so take this recommendation as you will. Just wanted to mention it, as I believe he has more than earned my recommendation.

#7 kevinmcc

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,199 posts
  • Joined: 16-December 12

Posted 25 December 2017 - 11:05 PM

First of all, I want to make it clear I am not on here to argue with anyone.


That is great. I posted this recent ruling because of Illinois law.

Illinois has exclusions that are similar but far more broad than 922(g)4. Just being patient at a mental health clinic for any reason will get your FOID card revoked. You do not even need to be committed voluntarily or involuntarily.

That is why I think the case above is important.
Life Member, Gun Owners of America
Life Member, NRA
Life Member, Oath Keepers
Life Member, Second Amendment Foundation

#8 NotCommittedOrAdjudicated

  • Members
  • 3 posts
  • Joined: 25-December 17

Posted 25 December 2017 - 11:21 PM

I agree, the case has broader implications, in multiple scenarios. When we filed it, I had hoped it would be ruled on in such a fashion that it could be used by more than just myself. As of now, it is a "win" for me, but there are possibilities which might mean this is not the end of the process. Joshua Prince first got me PA relief, then we were left with no choice but to file in the Western Dist. to have any hope of Federal Relief. Now, I wait, again, to see how the Government responds.
Thanks for the reply...
Edited to add: Ya, IL is one Anti-Firearm state, I can believe your claim about their FOID prohibitions.

Edited by NotCommittedOrAdjudicated, 25 December 2017 - 11:22 PM.


#9 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,540 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 08 January 2018 - 11:46 AM

First of all, I want to make it clear I am not on here to argue with anyone.That is great. I posted this recent ruling because of Illinois law.Illinois has exclusions that are similar but far more broad than 922(g)4. Just being patient at a mental health clinic for any reason will get your FOID card revoked. You do not even need to be committed voluntarily or involuntarily.That is why I think the case above is important.

FINALLY we have some teeth to challenge that part of the FOID Card Act. I've been screaming about denying rights without due process, and that's exactly what the mental health admission prohibition does. I've seen people who were put in psych wards simply because of hospital overflow lose their gun rights. They get into a car accident, not enough beds in the main hospital, so they're placed in the psych ward portion. Then get blanket reported. It's out of control.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk


NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Mental Health, Gun Rights, 18 U.S.C. 922

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users