Jump to content


Photo

United States v. Rehlander (1st Cir. Jan. 13, 2012),


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
4 replies to this topic

#1 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Moderator
  • 9,258 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted 13 January 2012 - 11:21 PM

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:

...


People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

--George Orwell

-- Certified something-or-other by various organizations and governmental entities.

#2 JackTripper

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 972 posts
  • Joined: 17-July 10

Posted 14 January 2012 - 08:21 AM

Very interesting
Come and knock on my door. I'll be waiting for you.

#3 Ron

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 274 posts
  • Joined: 29-November 11

Posted 14 January 2012 - 08:41 AM

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

Edited by Ron, 14 January 2012 - 08:51 AM.


#4 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,902 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 14 January 2012 - 12:57 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.
"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA, CCRKBA & SAF

#5 Ron

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 274 posts
  • Joined: 29-November 11

Posted 14 January 2012 - 01:24 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.