NRA-ILA

nA1lCnAL 8llLL ASSCClA1lCn Cl AML8lCA

lnS1l1u1L lC8 LLClSLA1lvL AC1lCn
11230 WALLS MlLL 8CAu
lAl8lAx, vl8ClnlA 22030-7400





Comments of the Nat|ona| k|f|e Assoc|at|on Inst|tute for Leg|s|at|ve Act|on
|n Cppos|t|on to roposed ku|e A1I S1
















1ab|e of Contents

I. Mean|ng and Intent of 1he Gun Contro| Act's Menta| nea|th rov|s|ons ............................. 2
A. Statutory 1ext .............................................................................................................................. 2
8. Leg|s|at|ve n|story ........................................................................................................................ 3
C. Case Law ...................................................................................................................................... 6
II. 8A1IL's Current kegu|at|ons and S1's Suggested Changes .............................................. 12
A. Current kegu|at|ons ................................................................................................................... 12
8. S1's Lxpans|on of the Current kegu|atory Def|n|t|ons ............................................................... 13
III. S1 Wou|d Amp||fy Current rob|ems and Introduce New Cnes ...................................... 14
A. rob|ems w|th 8A1IL's Current kegu|at|ons ............................................................................... 14
8. S1's Aggravat|on and Lxpans|on of Current rob|ems ............................................................... 17
IV. 1he GCA's Menta| nea|th rov|s|ons are |n Need of Updat|ng and C|ar|f|cat|on, but 1h|s |s a
Iob for Congress, Not 8A1IL ................................................................................................. 19
A. 1he GCA's Menta| nea|th rov|s|ons, and 8A1IL's kegu|at|ons Imp|ement|ng 1hem, Are the
roducts of Ant|quated Att|tudes 1oward Menta| nea|th ............................................................... 19
8. 1he Stereotype of Menta| I||ness Lead|ng to V|o|ence |s Inaccurate ............................................ 21
V. NkA-ILA's kecommendat|ons ........................................................................................... 23
A. Let Congress I|x the rob|ems |t nas Created ............................................................................. 23
8. 1he Way Iorward to keform ...................................................................................................... 24
C. Spec|f|c Comments on S1 .......................................................................................................... 2S
D. kecommended Def|n|t|ons ......................................................................................................... 27








1

IN1kCDUC1ICN
Cn !anuary 7, 2014, Lhe 8ureau of Alcohol, 1obacco, llrearms and Lxploslves (8A1lL) publlshed
ln Lhe lederal 8eglsLer noLlce of a proposed rulemaklng (herelnafLer referred Lo by lLs 8A1lL dockeL
number 31) LhaL seeks Lo amend Lhe deflnlLlons of ad[udlcaLed as a menLal defecLlve" and
commlLLed Lo a menLal lnsLlLuLlon" as Lhose Lerms are used ln Lhe Cun ConLrol AcL of 1968 (CCA).
1

1hese Lerms are slgnlflcanL because of Lhe legal consequences LhaL aLLach Lo recelpL or possesslon of a
flrearm by, or sale or dlsposlLlon of a flrearm Lo, a person who falls wlLhln elLher caLegory. 1he proposal,
and Lhe underlylng sLaLuLe on whlch lL ls based, are premlsed on Lhe ldea LhaL such persons are Loo
dangerous or lrresponslble Lo safely possess or handle flrearms.
1he naLlonal 8lfle AssoclaLlon lnsLlLuLe for LeglslaLlve (n8A-lLA) ls a 301(c)(4) organlzaLlon
dedlcaLed Lo proLecLlng Lhe fundamenLal, lndlvldual rlghL Lo keep and bear arms for defenslve and oLher
leglLlmaLe purposes. As such, we sLrongly agree LhaL Lhe laws should seek wherever posslble Lo prevenL
Lhe possesslon or acqulslLlon of flrearms by dangerous lndlvlduals, and we have long recognlzed Lhls
efforL may lnvolve conslderaLlons of menLal lllness.
2
?eL n8A-lLA ls also Lhe naLlon's leadlng proponenL
of Lhe Second AmendmenL as a clvll rlghL LhaL proLecLs Lhe even more baslc rlghL Lo self-preservaLlon
agalnsL un[usLlfled aggresslon. 1herefore, Lo Lhe degree Lhe law seeks Lo lmpose caLegorlcal prohlblLlons
on Lhe possesslon and acqulslLlon of oLherwlse lawful arms, n8A-lLA has Lhe responslblllLy Lo ensure
Lhose caLegorles have sLrong emplrlcal supporL and are narrowly-Lallored Lo Lhose who acLually presenL
a demonsLrably lncreased rlsk of vlolenL or unconLrollable behavlor.
We also belleve LhaL even carefully-drawn caLegorles are llkely ln lndlvldual cases Lo lack
[usLlflcaLlon because of clrcumsLances speclflc Lo Lhe lndlvldual, lncludlng Lhe clrcumsLances surroundlng
Lhe orlglnal dlsablllLy, as well as Lhe lndlvldual's success aL rehablllLaLlon or recovery. lndlvlduals wlLhln
a prohlblLed class should Lherefore have Lhe opporLunlLy for a case-by-case deLermlnaLlon of Lhelr
clrcumsLances so Lhey are noL needlessly and un[usLlflably deprlved of Lhelr Second AmendmenL rlghLs.
1hls ls especlally so ln Lhe case of menLal lllness, where Lhe dlsablllLy may be based on an affllcLlon
whlch Lhe lndlvldual cannoL conLrol buL whlch ls manageable wlLh proper LreaLmenL, or whlch was
slLuaLlonal and has slnce abaLed, and whlch lmpuLes no moral gullL or blameworLhlness.
n8A-lLA agrees ln prlnclple LhaL Lhe currenL menLal healLh sLandards of Lhe CCA are due for
serlous and crlLlcal reevaluaLlon. As explalned more fully below, much has changed abouL how menLal
lllness ls vlewed and LreaLed medlcally and handled legally slnce Lhe CCA was orlglnally debaLed ln Lhe
mld-1960s. Many of Lhe assumpLlons LhaL underlle Lhe CCA's approach Lo Lhls lssue are no longer

1
79 led. 8eg. 774.
2
5ee LdlLorlal, 1be Meotolly lll, Amerlcan 8lfleman, SepL. 1966 aL 20 (acknowledglng LhaL man's knowledge of Lhe
human mlnd ls so llmlLed LhaL even Lhose wlLh a professlonal Lralnlng ln psychlaLry can only surmlse Lhe causes of .
. . vlolenL acLlons" buL endorslng laws requlrlng menLal healLh professlonals Lo reporL Lo law enforcemenL
auLhorlLles paLlenLs who express vlolenL lnLenLlons durlng psychlaLrlc lnLervlews or procedures).
2
consldered Lo be sclenLlflcally valld, and sLaLuLory provlslons Congress enacLed Lo provlde for rellef from
dlsablllLles are noL wldely avallable or worklng as lnLended. 8ecause Lhe CCA's approach Lo menLal
healLh lssues ls lLself fundamenLally flawed, we do noL belleve LhaL an admlnlsLraLlve rulemaklng ls Lhe
proper vehlcle for Lhe needed reevaluaLlon Lo occur. We also belleve LhaL on Lhe merlLs 31 merely
adds Lo Lhe problems lnherenL ln Lhe underlylng sLaLuLory scheme by exLendlng prohlblLlons LhaL
already lack due regard for Lhe lmporLance of Lhe rlghLs affecLed and proper [usLlflcaLlon for Lhelr denlal.
Slmply puL, 31 ls noL a LhoughLful or helpful aLLempL Lo address Lhls lmporLanL Loplc.
Lven now, efforLs are underway ln Congress Lo brlng LogeLher people wlLh Lhe relevanL
experLlse and experlence Lo lnsLlLuLe serlous reform of Amerlca's fracLured and dysfuncLlonal menLal
healLhcare dellvery sysLem.
3
8eform of Lhe CCA's menLal healLh provlslons deserves no less serlous and
dellberaLe aLLenLlon and should be Lhe domaln of elecLed offlclals who can marshal Lhe proper evldence
and experLlse ln properly conducLed leglslaLlve hearlngs and lnvesLlgaLlons. When Lhe raLlonale of a
sLaLuLe ls undermlned by laLer developmenLs ln sclence and medlclne, as ls Lhe case wlLh Lhe CCA's
menLal healLh provlslons, Lhe responslblllLy for a flx lles wlLh Congress.
8A1lL ls a law enforcemenL agency and does noL have Lhe medlcal knowledge or senslLlvlLy Lo
Lhe nuances lnvolved adequaLely Lo Lackle Lhls lssue. lLs suggesLlons ln 31 would slmply expand Lhe
unlverse of prohlblLed persons, as well as lLs own [urlsdlcLlon. ln so dolng, Lhe proposed rule would
creaLe furLher confuslon, sLlgma for Lhose affllcLed wlLh menLal lllness, and dlslncenLlves for volunLary
menLal healLh LreaLmenL. n8A-lLA accordlngly opposes Lhe adopLlon of 31 ln lLs currenL form and
belleves LhaL reform ln Lhls area ls more approprlaLely addressed by Congress. lf 8A1lL neverLheless
conLlnues Lo pursue amendmenL of Lhe exlsLlng regulaLlons, we would suggesL a number of changes Lo
lLs proposed language.
I. Mean|ng and Intent of 1he Gun Contro| Act's Menta| nea|th rov|s|ons
Congress enacLed Lhe CCA aL a Llme when menLal lllness was wldely mlsundersLood. 1he
evldence suggesLs LhaL Congress shared Lhe popular, alLhough lnaccuraLe, vlew LhaL menLal lllness was
lndlcaLlve of an lncreased rlsk for dangerous or vlolenL behavlor. lL also suggesLs LhaL Congress
undersLood Lhe Lerm menLal defecLlve" - whlch Loday sounds crude and pe[oraLlve - ln whaL aL Lhe
Llme was lLs accepLed use ln law and medlclne as referrlng Lo lndlvlduals wlLh llfelong lnLellecLual
dlsablllLles. ln lmplemenLlng Congress' lnLenL Lhrough rulemaklng, 8A1lL should bear ln mlnd LhaL even
Lo Lhe Congress of 1968, menLal lllness was only relevanL Lo Lhe degree LhaL lL correlaLed wlLh a
propenslLy for vlolence, and menLal defecLlve" was noL a broad Lerm referrlng Lo menLal lllness
generally. Moreover, Lhe CCA's focus on ad[udlcaLlons" and commlLmenLs" lndlcaLes LhaL Congress
undersLood Lhe deprlvaLlons lL was lmposlng on Second AmendmenL rlghLs necesslLaLed a legal
deLermlnaLlon sub[ecL Lo Lhe proLecLlons of due process, and noL [usL Lhe oplnlon of a slngle docLor or
cllnlclan.
A. SLaLuLory 1exL

3
5ee, e.q., Pelplng lamllles ln MenLal PealLh Crlsls AcL, P.8. 3717, 113Lh Cong. (2013).
3
1he Cun ConLrol AcL of 1968
4
prohlblLs Lhe sale or dlsposal of a flrearm or ammunlLlon Lo, or Lhe
possesslon or recelpL of a flrearm or ammunlLlon by, a person who has been ad[udlcaLed as a menLal
defecLlve or has been commlLLed Lo a menLal lnsLlLuLlon."
3
nelLher of Lhese Lerms ls deflned ln Lhe AcL
lLself, and Lhe underlylng federal and sLaLe laws concernlng procedures LhaL could poLenLlally Lrlgger
Lhese dlsablllLles vary wldely.
6
As we explaln below, however, menLal defecLlveness" Lo Lhe Congress
of 1968 meanL a llfelong lnLellecLual dlsablllLy, whlle commlLmenL" lmplled lnvolunLary conflnemenL
wlLhln a publlc menLal lnsLlLuLlon.
neverLheless, Lhe raLlonale of 31 seems Lo be LhaL Congress lnLended Lo wrlLe a blank check for
Lhese Lerms Lo apply Lo any sorL of deLermlnaLlon made abouL a person's menLal sLaLus ln an offlclal
proceedlng. lndeed, 31 would have Lhls raLlonale apply even lf Lhose proceedlngs would have been
unknown Lo Lhe Congress LhaL enacLed Lhe CCA. 8A1lL's rulemaklng auLhorlLy, however, ls narrowly
conflned Lo only such rules and regulaLlons as are oecessoty Lo carry ouL Lhe provlslons" of Lhe CCA.
7

lLs regulaLory reach should accordlngly be narrowly consLrued, and all doubLs resolved agalnsL lL.
1he background lnformaLlon 8A1lL provldes wlLh respecL Lo 31 ls noL lllumlnaLlng wlLh respecL
Lo congresslonal lnLenL. 1he proposal noLes LhaL Lhe currenL regulaLory deflnlLlons of Lhese Lerms were
flnallzed on !une 27, 1997. Accordlng Lo 8A1lL, whaL commenLs were recelved concerned only Lhe
deflnlLlons of ad[udlcaLed as a menLal defecLlve," and none Look lssue wlLh lLs deflnlLlon of commlLLed
Lo a menLal lnsLlLuLlon."
8. LeglslaLlve PlsLory
8A1lL's proposal clalms, 1he leglslaLlve hlsLory of Lhe Cun ConLrol AcL lndlcaLes LhaL Congress
lnLended Lhe prohlblLlon agalnsL recelpL and possesslon of flrearms would apply broadly Lo 'menLally
unsLable' or 'lrresponslble' persons."
8
1o bolsLer Lhls argumenL, 8A1lL clLes sLaLemenLs from Lhe
Congresslonal 8ecord by several represenLaLlves. ?eL Lhe unlLed SLaLes Supreme CourL has re[ecLed
rellance on Lhe passlng commenLs of one Member" and casual sLaLemenLs from floor debaLes" as
lndlcaLlve of Lhe consldered and collecLlve undersLandlng of Lhose Congressmen lnvolved ln drafLlng
and sLudylng proposed leglslaLlon."
9


4
18 u.S.C. 921-931.
3
18 u.S.C. 922(d)(4), (g)(4).
6
5ee, e.q., Advocacy CenLer 1reaLmenL, 5tote 5tooJotJs fot AsslsteJ 1teotmeot. clvll commltmeot ctltetlo fot
lopotleot ot Ootpotleot lsycblottlc 1teotmeot, !an. 2013, ovolloble ot hLLp://LreaLmenLadvocacycenLer.org/
sLorage/documenLs/SLandards_-_1he_1exL-_!une_2011.pdf.
7
18 u.S.C. 926(a) (emphasls added).
8
79 led. 8eg. 776.
9
Cotclo v. uolteJ 5totes, 469 u.S. 70, 76 (1984). 5ee olso coosomet ltoJoct 5ofety commlssloo v. C1 5ylvoolo, loc.
447 u.S. 102, 118 (1980) (clLlng cbtyslet cotp. v. 8towo, 441 u.S. 281, 311, (1979)) (ordlnarlly even Lhe
4
Moreover, when placed ln Lhelr proper conLexL, Lhe quoLes 8A1lL offers do noL supporL lLs
lnLerpreLaLlon of Lhe sLaLuLory LexL. AL mosL, Lhey lndlcaLe a general concern abouL dangerous persons
possesslng flrearms, buL none of Lhe commenLs address or even reference Lhe Lerms used ln Lhe CCA
lLself. 1he Lerms Lhe represenLaLlves use Lo express Lhelr concerns abouL Lhe dangerously menLally lll
show no preclslon or unlformlLy. 1o Lhe exLenL Lhey express a sense of consensus abouL Lhe proper
scope or llmlLs of Lhe leglslaLlon, Lhey acLually refuLe Lhe approach Laken by 31 and suggesL only Lhe
mosL serlous and dlsabllng condlLlons are relevanL.
8A1lL flrsL clLes a !uly 17, 1968, sLaLemenL by 8ep. 8oberL Slkes. 1he agency conLends LhaL
Slkes' use of Lhe Lerm menLally lrresponslble persons" supporLs a broad lnLerpreLaLlon of Lhe
underlylng sLaLuLory language.
Slkes sLaLed, l know Lhere ls a need for sane leglslaLlon whlch ls lnLended Lo keep weapons ouL
of Lhe hands of crlmlnals and menLally lrresponslble persons. 1here ls a greaLer need even Lhan Lhls and
we cannoL expecL Lo accompllsh lL wlLh Lhe leglslaLlon whlch ls proposed here."
10
A senLence laLer, Slkes
sLaLed hls opposlLlon Lo whaL would become Lhe CCA, noLlng, l am prepared Lo supporL reasonable
leglslaLlon Lo keep weapons ouL of Lhe hands of Lhe wrong people buL l cannoL supporL P.8. 17733."
11

Slkes' avowed opposlLlon Lo P.8. 17733, coupled wlLh hls sLaLed supporL for sane leglslaLlon
whlch ls lnLended Lo keep weapons ouL of Lhe hands of crlmlnals and menLally lrresponslble persons,"
lndlcaLes LhaL hls use of Lhe Lerm menLally lrresponslble persons" was noL ln reference Lo P.8. 17733.
8aLher, Slkes used Lhe Lerm ln descrlblng a hypoLheLlcal plece of leglslaLlon he could supporL, noL Lhe
leglslaLlon acLually before Lhe Congress.
LaLer ln hls sLaLemenL, Slkes remarked, WhaL ls needed ls LlghLer curbs on crlmlnals or Lhose
who are menLally dellnquenL. lL ls crlmlnals who should be curbed - noL guns," and he goes on Lo
lamenL a crlmlnal [usLlce sysLem LhaL he belleved was coddllng" crlmlnals.
12
1hls suggesLs LhaL 8ep.
Slkes' ldea of sane leglslaLlon" was LhaL whlch would focus, noL on flrearms Lhemselves, buL on
crlmlnals and on Lhose whose menLal condlLlons expressed Lhemselves ln crlmlnal acLlvlLy. ApparenLly,
he saw Lhe focus on flrearms ln Lhe CCA as mlsplaced, and noLhlng ln Lhe clLed commenLs lndlcaLes LhaL
he endorsed Lhe language acLually adopLed ln AcL, much less LhaL he had an oplnlon on Lhe conLours of
whaL was Lo become 18 u.S.C. 922(d)(4) and (g)(4).
1he remalnlng congresslonal hlsLory clLed by 8A1lL llkewlse offers no evldence Lo supporL
8A1lL's deslred expanslon of Lhe prohlblLed person caLegorles. lf anyLhlng, Lhe varleLy of Lerms used

conLemporaneous remarks of a slngle leglslaLor who sponsors a blll are noL conLrolllng ln analyzlng leglslaLlve
hlsLory").
10
114 Cong. 8ec. P21780 (dally ed. !uly 17, 1968).
11
lJ.
12
lJ. aL 21781.
3
lnLerchangeably by Lhe represenLaLlves debaLlng P.8. 17733 Lo descrlbe Lhe menLally lll persons Lo be
prohlblLed suggesL LhaL Lhe represenLaLlves used Lhese Lerms haphazardly and gave llLLle LhoughL Lo
Lhelr cholce of words.
8A1lL hlghllghLs some represenLaLlves' use of Lhe Lerms menLally unsLable" or lrresponslble
persons" as supporL for 31's expanslve deflnlLlons, buL lgnores oLher Lerms represenLaLlves used ln
reference Lo Lhe menLally lll LhaL suggesL a narrower readlng. lor lnsLance, 8epresenLaLlves !ames
Corman and lrank 1hompson, whom 8A1lL clLes, used Lhe Lerms menLal lncompeLenLs"
13
and
menLally deranged,"
14
respecLlvely, Lo descrlbe Lhose Lhe leglslaLlon would bar. ln addlLlon Lo Lhe
represenLaLlves 8A1lL clLes, 8ep. !oseph Mlnlsh used Lhe Lerms lrresponslble" and deranged" ln Lhe
same sLaLemenL Lo descrlbe Lhose LhaL P.8. 17733 would LargeL.
13
Some represenLaLlves expressed an
lnLeresL ln keeplng guns away from lunaLlcs,"
16
psychopaLhs,"
17
and Lhe lnsane"
18
durlng debaLe.
lf anyLhlng, Lhese sLaLemenLs suggesL LhaL Congress was focused only on exLreme cases of
psychopaLhology or profound lncapaclLy, raLher Lhan more common forms of menLal lllness LhaL would
be swepL ln by 31's Lerms.
ln any evenL, Lhe represenLaLlves' lndlscrlmlnaLe and varylng use of language does noL offer
supporL for 8A1lL's presenL poslLlon. 8aLher, lL lllusLraLes Lhe folly of cherry plcklng phrases and Lerms
Lo deLermlne congresslonal lnLenL, and makes clear Lhe lmporLance of relylng flrsL and foremosL on Lhe
CCA's acLual LexL when lnLerpreLlng Lhe scope of Lhe law. As Lhe Supreme CourL sLaLed, [L]o selecL
casual sLaLemenLs from floor debaLes, noL always dlsLlngulshed for candor or accuracy, as a basls for
maklng up our mlnds whaL law Congress lnLended Lo enacL ls Lo subsLlLuLe ourselves for Lhe Congress ln
one of lLs lmporLanL funcLlons."
19

1o Lhe exLenL Lhe leglslaLlve hlsLory says anyLhlng useful aL all abouL Lhe CCA's prohlblLlons on
Lhe menLally lll, lL's LhaL Lhe represenLaLlves who debaLed Lhe AcL dld noL have a unlform or
sophlsLlcaLed undersLandlng of menLal lllness or of Lhe Lype of menLally lll people who should be
prohlblLed from havlng flrearms. ln general, Lhe represenLaLlves saw a need Lo address flrearm
acqulslLlon and possesslon by Lhe dangerously menLally lll, buL as ls explalned below, 31's expanslve

13
lJ. aL 21832.
14
lJ. aL 21791.
13
lJ. aL 21799.
16
lJ (sLaLemenL of 8ep. Mlnlsh).
17
lJ. aL 21837 (sLaLemenL of 8ep. uwyer).
18
lJ. aL 21834 (sLaLemenL of 8ep. Callagher).
19
Cotclo, 469 u.S. aL 76, n.3 (clLlng 5cbweqmooo 8tos. v. colvett ulstlllets cotp., 341 u.S. 384, 393-396 (1931)
(!ackson, !., concurrlng)) (lnLernal quoLaLlons omlLLed).
6
deflnlLlons do noL focus on dangerousness as a deflnlng characLerlsLlc. 1hls merely underscores Lhe
need for Congress Lo revlslL Lhe lssue ln a more dellberaLe manner and ln llghL of modern sclence's
undersLandlng of how and Lo whaL degree menLal lllness lndlcaLes a propenslLy for vlolence or
dangerousness.
C. Case Law
8A1lL clLes only one case Lo supporL lLs lnLerpreLaLlon of Lhe CCA's menLal healLh-relaLed
prohlblLlons. 1haL declslon, however, ls a dlsLrlcL courL case LhaL ls noL blndlng ln lLs own [urlsdlcLlon,
much less anywhere else.
20
lederal clrculL courLs have also welghed ln on Lhe CCA's menLal healLh
prohlblLlons, a facL LhaL 31 lgnores alLogeLher. AL leasL one clrculL has flaLly re[ecLed Lhe readlng of
menLal defecLlve" LhaL ls reflecLed ln 8A1lL's currenL regulaLlon. ?eL 31 would furLher expand Lhe
deflnlLlon of LhaL Lerm, compoundlng Lhe error. CourLs are Lhe ulLlmaLe auLhorlLy on sLaLuLory
lnLerpreLaLlon, and Lhelr readlng of a sLaLuLe wlll prevall over an agency's.
21
1herefore, whaLever
deference mlghL oLherwlse apply Lo 8A1lL's lnLerpreLaLlon of Lhe CCA, lL should noL apply ln Lhe conLexL
of 8A1lL's lnLerpreLaLlon of Lhe Lerm menLal defecLlve." Slmllarly, whlle courLs have dlffered on Lhe
scope of appllcable commlLmenLs," no federal appellaLe courL has adopLed Lhe broad readlng of LhaL
Lerm suggesLed by 31, and Lhe cases do noL unlformly suggesL LhaL a broad readlng ls approprlaLe.
LxamlnaLlon of Lhe CCA's menLal healLh provlslons by federal courLs began shorLly afLer passage
of Lhe AcL (and before any regulaLlon was enacLed concernlng Lhe meanlng of lLs menLal healLh
Lermlnology). ln 1973, Lhe LlghLh ClrculL evaluaLed Lhe scope of Lhe Lerms ad[udlcaLed as a menLal
defecLlve" and commlLLed Lo a menLal lnsLlLuLlon" ln uolteJ 5totes v. noosel.
22
1he courL flrsL accepLed
Lhe governmenL's concesslon LhaL Lhe defendanL had noL been commlLLed because, lL concluded, an
lnvolunLary hosplLallzaLlon for observaLlonal purposes ls noL a commlLmenL.
23
ln deLermlnlng Lhe
meanlng of menLal defecLlve," Lhe courL followed Lhe famlllar rule LhaL crlmlnal sLaLuLes are Lo be

20
5ee Am. lec. lowet co., loc. v. coooectlcot, 131 S. CL. 2327, 2340 (2011) ([l]ederal dlsLrlcL [udges, slLLlng as sole
ad[udlcaLors, lack auLhorlLy Lo render precedenLlal declslons blndlng oLher [udges, even members of Lhe same
courL").
21
5ee, e.q., Jocotloo Asslstooce cotp. v. covozos, 902 l.2d 617, 622 (8
Lh
Clr. 1990) (clLlng 3 u.S.C. 706) (Whlle
we may glve deference Lo Lhe agency's lnLerpreLaLlon of Lhe sLaLuLe whlch glves lL Lhe auLhorlLy Lo acL . we have
ulLlmaLe responslblllLy over quesLlons of sLaLuLory lnLerpreLaLlon and Congresslonal lnLenL.").
22
1he defendanL ln noosel was found by a menLal healLh board Lo be menLally lll and was hosplLallzed for a perlod
of observaLlon LhaL under nebraska law could lasL up Lo slxLy days. A docLor Lhen found Lhe defendanL was noL
menLally lll, and he was released from Lhe hosplLal afLer only Lwo weeks. Cn appeal, Lhe governmenL conceded
LhaL Lhe order for hosplLallzaLlon was noL a commlLmenL wlLhln Lhe meanlng of Lhe CCA, buL sLlll unsuccessfully
argued LhaL Lhe defendanL had been ad[udlcaLed as a menLal defecLlve" due Lo Lhe menLal healLh board's
deLermlnaLlon LhaL he was menLally lll. 474 l.2d 1120, 1121-23 (8Lh Clr. 1973).
23
lJ. aL 1123.
7
sLrlcLly consLrued" and gave Lo Lhe Lerm lLs narrow meanlng."
24
8ased on experL LesLlmony and Lhe
Lhen-common undersLandlng of Lhe Lerm, Lhe courL found LhaL a menLal defecLlve" ls a person who
has never possessed a normal degree of lnLellecLual capaclLy, whereas ln an lnsane person faculLles
whlch were orlglnally normal have been lmpalred by menLal dlsease."
23
CrlLlcally, Lhe courL speclflcally
consldered and re[ecLed Lhe asserLlon - ldenLlcal Lo 31's
26
- LhaL menLal defecLlveness" ls synonymous
wlLh menLal lllness."
ln response Lo Lhe governmenL's argumenL LhaL Congress lnLended ad[udlcaLlons of menLal
lllness Lo fall wlLhln Lhe meanlng of Lhe prohlblLlon Lhe courL sLaLed, lf lL ls Lhe deslre of Congress Lo
prohlblL persons who have any hlsLory of menLal lllness from possesslng guns, lL can pass leglslaLlon Lo
LhaL effecL, buL we cannoL read lnLo Lhls crlmlnal sLaLuLe an lnLenL Lo do so."
27
1hls case, declded [usL
flve years afLer enacLmenL of Lhe CCA, ls plalnly lncompaLlble wlLh 31's concluslon LhaL Congress
lnLended LhaL Lhe prohlblLlon agalnsL Lhe recelpL and possesslon of flrearms would apply broadly Lo
'menLally unsLable' or 'lrresponslble' persons."
28

1he only case acLually clLed ln 31, Lhe dlsLrlcL courL case of uolteJ 5totes v. 8.n.,
29
lronlcally
underscores noosel's narrow readlng of Lhe CCA's menLal defecLlve" language, even as 8A1lL lnvokes
lL as precedenL for lLs broad readlng of Lhe CCA's commlLmenL" language. ln 8.n., Lhe courL followed
Lhe noosel declslon's narrow readlng of ad[udlcaLed as a menLal defecLlve," even Lhough a conLrary
regulaLlon had been lssued Lo lmplemenL Lhe CCA afLer noosel.
30
1he courL re[ecLed 8A1lL's deflnlLlon
of menLal defecLlve" as Loo broad and found LhaL because 8.P. was noL found Lo have never possessed
a normal degree of lnLellecLual capaclLy, . 8.P. was noL 'ad[udged as a menLal defecLlve.'"
31

8A1lL lnsLead clLes 8.n. for Lhe courL's concluslon LhaL 8.P. was commlLLed Lo a menLal
lnsLlLuLlon" based on an order of mandaLory ouLpaLlenL LreaLmenL. 1he courL reasoned, 1he sLaLuLe
only requlres commlLmenL to a menLal lnsLlLuLlon, noL commlLmenL lo a menLal lnsLlLuLlon."
32
?eL Lhls
reasonlng relles on a flawed and llngulsLlcally awkward readlng of Lhe CCA's sLaLuLory LexL.

24
lJ. (clLlng otes v. uolteJ 5totes, 334 u.S. 298, 310 (1937)).
23
474 l.2d aL 1124.
26
5ee 79 led. 8eg 777 (1he Lerm [commlLLed Lo a menLal lnsLlLuLlon] lncludes an lnvolunLary commlLmenL for
menLal defecLlveness, l.e., menLal lllness, Lo a menLal lnsLlLuLlon.")
27
474 l.2d aL 1123.
28
5ee sopto noLe 1.
29
uolteJ 5totes v. 8.n., 466 l. Supp. 2d 1139 (n.u. lowa 2006).
30
lJ. aL 1146 (clLlng 27 C.l.8. 478.11).
31
lJ. aL 1147.
32
lJ.
8
1he 8.n. courL and 31 clalm LhaL lf lL had been Lhe lnLenL of Congress Lo llmlL Lhe prohlblLlon ln
18 u.S.C. 922(g)(4) Lo only cover lnpaLlenL commlLmenLs, Lhen Lhe CCA would read who has been
commlLLed ln a menLal lnsLlLuLlon." ?eL changlng Lhese preposlLlons glves a compleLely dlfferenL
meanlng Lo Lhe phrase. 1he preposlLlon Lo" ls mosL commonly used for expresslng moLlon or dlrecLlon
Loward a . . . place, or Lhlng approached and reached . . . ."
33
1he preposlLlon ln," on Lhe oLher hand, ls
mosL commonly used Lo lndlcaLe lncluslon wlLhln space, a place, or llmlLs," e.g., wolkloq lo tbe potk."
34

1hus, Lhe 8.n. courL's and 31's readlng of Lhe phrase suggesLs noL a commlLmenL dlrecLlng a person Lo
a menLal lnsLlLuLlon buL commlLmenL proceedlngs LhaL Lhemselves occurred wlLhln a menLal lnsLlLuLlon.
Clearly, Lhls ls noL whaL Congress lnLended.
Moreover, Lhe phraslng LhaL Lhe 8.n. courL and 31 suggesLs ls unknown ln federal case law as
lndlcaLlng an acLlon of a courL or oLher ad[udlcaLlve body. A WesLlaw search of all federal cases, as of
March 23, 2014, revealed LhaL Lhe phrase commlLLed ln a menLal lnsLlLuLlon," or derlvaLlons Lhereof,

occur ln only Lhree reporLed federal cases (flve oLher unreporLed cases use some derlvaLlon of Lhe
phrase).
33
ln each of Lhe reporLed cases, moreover, Lhe phrase ls noL used Lo descrlbe Lhe acLlon of a
courL ln remandlng an lndlvldual Lo a speclflc faclllLy buL Lhe sLaLus of persons who are acLually resldlng
wlLhln Lhe faclllLles as commlLLed paLlenLs.
36

1he LlghLh ClrculL ls noL Lhe only u.S. courL of appeals Lo glve a narrow readlng Lo Lhe meanlng
of ad[udlcaLed as a menLal defecLlve" and commlLLed Lo a menLal lnsLlLuLlon." 1he llfLh ClrculL also
applled Lhe rule of lenlLy ln holdlng LhaL:
[L]emporary, emergency deLenLlons for LreaLmenL of menLal dlsorders
or dlfflculLles, whlch do noL lead Lo formal commlLmenLs under sLaLe
law, do noL consLlLuLe Lhe commlLmenL envlsloned by 18 u.S.C. 922.
An essenLlal elemenL of LhaL federal offense ls elLher a formal
ad[udlcaLlon LhaL a person suffers a menLal defecL, or a formal
commlLmenL, whlch laLLer, ln Lhe lnsLance of Loulslana, requlres formal
acLlon by Lhe sLaLe dlsLrlcL courL.
37


33
ueflnlLlon of Lo," ulcLlonary.com, hLLp://dlcLlonary.reference.com/browse/Lo?s=L (lasL vlslLed Aprll 7, 2014).
34
ueflnlLlon of ln," ulcLlonary.com, hLLp://dlcLlonary.reference.com/browse/ln?s=L (lasL vlslLed Aprll 7, 2014).
33
Search phrase used was <(commlLLed /1 #ln /2 menLal /1 lnsLlLuLlon)>.
36
nootet v. cotbooJole Ateo 5cbool ulst., 829 l.Supp. 714 (M.u. a. 1993) (referrlng Lo persons who are acLually ln
Lhe sLaLe's cusLody as paLlenLs lnvolunLarlly commlLLed ln menLal lnsLlLuLlons"), woe v. Mottbews, 408 l.Supp.
419 (L.u.n.?. 1976) (same), lyocb v. 8oxley, 386 l.Supp. 378, 383 (M.u. Ala. 1974) (referrlng Lo paLlenLs who
remaln commlLLed ln Alabama's menLal lnsLlLuLlons").
37
uolteJ 5totes v. ClotJloo, 861 l.2d 1334, 1337 (3Lh Clr. 1988).
9
noL all u.S. courLs of appeal agree LhaL 18 u.S.C. 922(g)(4) musL be read Lhls narrowly. 1he
Second ClrculL read Lhe Lerm commlLmenL" Lo apply Lo an lnvolunLary hosplLallzaLlon based on a
procedure LhaL requlred only Lhe cerLlflcaLes of Lwo physlclans, accompanled by an appllcaLlon for
admlsslon.
38
1he lourLh ClrculL read appllcable commlLmenLs" Lo lnclude clrcumsLances ln whlch a
paLlenL (MldgeLL) declared lncompeLenL Lo sLand Lrlal was remanded, wlLh consenL of hls aLLorney and
Lhe prosecuLor, Lo a sLaLe menLal hosplLal for LreaLmenL Lo resLore hlm Lo compeLency, wlLhouL golng
Lhrough Lhe sLaLe's formal commlLmenL process.
39

?eL boLh courLs speclflcally focused on Lhe medlcal flndlngs and procedural proLecLlons afforded
Lo lndlvlduals ln each process. 1he lourLh ClrculL emphaslzed LhaL:
(1) MldgeLL was examlned by a compeLenL menLal healLh pracLlLloner,
(2) he was represenLed by counsel, (3) facLual flndlngs were made by a
[udge who heard evldence, (4) a concluslon was reached by Lhe [udge
LhaL MldgeLL suffered from a menLal lllness Lo such a degree LhaL he was
ln need of lnpaLlenL hosplLal care, (3) a [udlclal order was lssued
commlLLlng MldgeLL Lo a menLal lnsLlLuLlon, and (6) he was acLually
conflned Lhere.
40

1he Second ClrculL, meanwhlle, explalned aL lengLh new ?ork's raLher elaboraLe procedural
scheme for noLlce, hearlng, revlew, and [udlclal approval of conLlnued reLenLlon ln a menLal healLh
faclllLy."
41
As descrlbed by Lhe courL:
ln order Lo be lnvolunLarlly admlLLed Lo a menLal healLh faclllLy, one
musL be menLally lll and ln need of lnvolunLary care and LreaLmenL."
n.?.MenLal Pyg.Law 9.27(a). A person ls 'ln need of lnvolunLary care
and LreaLmenL' [lf LhaL] person has a menLal lllness for whlch care and
LreaLmenL as a paLlenL ln a hosplLal ls essenLlal Lo such person's welfare
and whose [udgmenL ls so lmpalred LhaL he [or she] ls unable Lo
undersLand Lhe need for such care and LreaLmenL." lJ. 9.01 (Mcklnney
1988 & Supp.1994). ln addlLlon, Lhe person musL pose[ ] a subsLanLlal
LhreaL of physlcal harm Lo herself or Lo oLhers." lo te Ieoooette 5., 137
A.u.2d 783, 330 n.?.S.2d 383, 384 (2d uep'L 1990) (mem.) (clLaLlons
omlLLed). SecLlon 9.27 allows for Lhe lnvolunLary admlsslon of an
lndlvldual based upon an appllcaLlon of a relaLlve or oLher quallfled
person, and a Lwo-physlclan cerLlflcaLe.
4
A psychlaLrlsL musL examlne

38
uolteJ 5totes v. wotets, 23 l.3d 29, 33 (2d Clr. 1994).
39
uolteJ 5totes v. MlJqett, 198 l.3d 143, 146 (4Lh Clr. 1999).
40
lJ. aL 146.
41
wotets, 23 l.3d aL 32.
10
Lhe person upon arrlval aL Lhe hosplLal or menLal healLh faclllLy, and lf lL
ls found LhaL lnvolunLary LreaLmenL ls approprlaLe, Lhe person may be
admlLLed. n.?.MenLal Pyg.Law 9.27(e). SecLlon 9.31(a) provldes for a
hearlng for an lnvolunLarlly admlLLed paLlenL upon requesL aL any Llme
prlor Lo Lhe explraLlon of slxLy days from Lhe daLe of lnvolunLary
admlsslon." Such hearlng would occur ln Lhe supreme courL or Lhe
counLy courL ln Lhe counLy deslgnaLed by Lhe appllcanL, . . . or lf no
deslgnaLlon be made . . . where [Lhe hosplLal or menLal healLh faclllLy] ls
locaLed." lJ. 9.31(b). llnally, 9.33(a) requlres LhaL Lhe dlrecLor of a
menLal healLh faclllLy obLaln a courL order auLhorlzlng Lhe conLlnued
deLalnmenL of a paLlenL wlLhln slxLy days of Lhe daLe of reLenLlon lf
such paLlenL does noL agree Lo remaln ln such hosplLal as a volunLary
paLlenL."
42

1he courL furLher noLed LhaL a paLlenL [musL] be glven noLlce of her rlghLs lmmedlaLely upon
admlsslon" and LhaL upon Lhe requesL of Lhe paLlenL or of anyone on Lhe paLlenL's behalf, Lhe paLlenL
shall be permlLLed Lo communlcaLe wlLh Lhe menLal hyglene legal servlce and avall hlmself [or herself] of
Lhe faclllLles Lhereof."
43

1he llrsL ClrculL, moreover, reevaluaLed whaL was lnlLlally lLs broad readlng of 18 u.S.C.
922(g)(4) followlng Lhe unlLed SLaLes Supreme CourL's declslon ln ulsttlct of colomblo v. nellet, whlch
recognlzed LhaL Lhe Second AmendmenL proLecLs an lndlvldual rlghL Lo possess flrearms for self-defense
and oLher leglLlmaLe purposes.
44
ln uolteJ 5totes v. keblooJet, Lhe courL overruled a prlor clrculL
precedenL LhaL held LhaL a mandaLory hosplLallzaLlon relylng only on ex potte proceedlngs was a
commlLmenL" for purposes of Lhe CCA.
43
ln llghL of nellet's holdlng LhaL Lhe Second AmendmenL
encompasses an lndlvldual rlghL, Lhe courL found LhaL more due process proLecLlons were requlred Lhan
Lhose provlded ln Lhe ex potte proceedlng before Lhe governmenL could permanenLly deprlve an
lndlvldual of Lhe rlghL Lo keep and bear arms.
46
[1]o work a permanenL or prolonged loss of a
consLlLuLlonal llberLy or properLy lnLeresL," Lhe llrsL ClrculL sLaLed, an ad[udlcaLory hearlng, lncludlng a
rlghL Lo offer and LesL evldence lf facLs are ln dlspuLe, ls requlred."
47
1he courL's reasonlng ls parLlcularly

42
lJ.
43
lJ. aL 32 n.3 (lnLernal quoLaLlon marks and clLaLlons omlLLed).
44
334 u.S. 370 (2008).
43
uolteJ 5totes v. keblooJet, 666 l.3d 43 (1sL Clr. 2012), ovettolloq uolteJ 5totes v. cbombetlolo, 139 l.3d 636
(1sL Clr. 1998).
46
lJ. aL 30-31.
47
lJ. aL 43.
11
appllcable Lo Lhe loss of flrearm rlghLs under 18 u.S.C. 922(d)(4) and (g)(4) because ln Lhe ma[orlLy of
sLaLes Lhe prohlblLlons are permanenL wlLh no posslblllLy of havlng Lhe rlghLs resLored.
48

8egardlng commlLmenLs, 31 seeks Lo expand Lhe prohlblLlons of 18 u.S.C. 922(d)(4) and
(g)(4) beyond formal lnpaLlenL commlLmenLs (alLhough how far beyond, as explalned below, ls noL
clear). 8ecause of Lhe severe deprlvaLlon on lndlvldual llberLy LhaL lnpaLlenL, long-Lerm commlLmenLs
enLall, courLs have requlred slmllar procedural proLecLlons ln Lhose cases Lo whaL ls requlred ln crlmlnal
cases.
49
lf Lhe scope of 18 u.S.C. 922(d)(4) and (g)(4) ls expanded Lo cover commlLmenLs LhaL do noL
requlre Lhese procedural proLecLlons, Lhen lL wlll fall Lo courLs on a case-by-case basls Lo deLermlne lf a
speclflc procedure conLalns sufflclenL due process Lo work a presumpLlvely permanenL deprlvaLlon of
Lhe fundamenLal, lndlvldual rlghLs proLecLed by Lhe Second AmendmenL.
As for relevanL ad[udlcaLlons of menLal defecLlveness," 8A1lL has offered absoluLely no
supporL ln LexL, leglslaLlve hlsLory, or [udlclal precedenL for lLs exLremely broad readlng of Lhls Lerm. AL
besL, 31 can be sald Lo creaLe lLs sLandards ouL of whole cloLh. AL worsL, lL flles dlrecLly ln Lhe face of
exlsLlng federal appellaLe case law and wlll remaln unenforceable ln cerLaln parLs of Lhe counLry where
LhaL precedenL remalns blndlng. 1hus, 31 wlll lead Lo less clarlLy and unlformlLy ln Lhe appllcaLlon of
Lhe CCA, raLher Lhan lmproved clarlLy and unlformlLy, whlch ls Lhe supposed lnLenL of Lhe proposal.
Cn Lhe whole, Lhe plcLure LhaL emerges from Lhe leglslaLlve hlsLory and case law of Lhe CCA's
menLal healLh-relaLed prohlblLlons lndlcaLes LhaL Lhey were noL glven careful conslderaLlon by Congress,
and Lhey have noL been conslsLenLly applled (a polnL whlch 31 lmpllclLly acknowledges).
30
8A1lL
clalms Lhe lnLenL wlLh 31 ls Lo clarlfy, raLher Lhan alLer, Lhe currenL meanlng of Lhe Lerms."
31
?eL LhaL

48
5ee lofto noLe 68 and accompanylng LexL dlscusslng Lhe unavallablllLy of flrearm rlghLs resLoraLlons ln many
sLaLes due Lo lack of cerLlflcaLlon under Lhe nlCS lmprovemenL AmendmenLs AcL of 2007.
49
5ee AJJloqtoo v. 1exos, 441 u.S. 418, 433 (1979) (holdlng LhaL a clear and convlnclng evldenLlary sLandard ls
requlred for an lnpaLlenL commlLmenL), netyfotJ v. lotket, 396 l.2d 393, 397 (10Lh Clr. 1968) (holdlng LhaL Lhe
rlghL Lo counsel applles ln formal commlLmenL proceedlngs).
30
ln addlLlon Lo Lhe federal cases already dlscussed, see 5tote v. 8ocboooo, 924 A.2d 422, 424 (n.P. 2007) (holdlng
LhaL a flndlng of lncompeLence Lo sLand Lrlal was noL an ad[udlcaLlon as a menLal defecLlve"), lotJo v. 5tote, 997
A.2d 836, 888 (Md. CL. App. 2010) (holdlng LhaL an emergency commlLmenL was noL a commlLmenL" under Lhe
CCA), Colleqos v. uoooloq, 764 n.W.2d 103, 110 (neb. 2009) (holdlng LhaL defendanL who soughL volunLary
admlsslon afLer belng ordered Lo be lnvolunLarlly hosplLallzed for observaLlonal purposes was noL commlLLed" for
purposes of Lhe CCA), llttle v. leoosylvoolo 5tote lollce, 33 A.3d 639, 666 (a. Commw. CL. 2011) (holdlng LhaL a
courL ordered hosplLallzaLlon for observaLlon Lo help ln senLenclng ln a crlmlnal cases was a commlLmenL").
31
5ee sopto noLe 1.
12
proposal reflecLs Lhe speclous raLlonale LhaL Lhe less people have flrearms, Lhe beLLer publlc safeLy wlll
be served.
32

Congress, however, expressed no such lnLenL wlLh Lhe CCA, sLaLlng ln lLs preamble:
Congress hereby declares LhaL . . . lL ls noL Lhe purpose of Lhls LlLle Lo
place any undue or unnecessary lederal resLrlcLlons or burdens on law-
abldlng clLlzens wlLh respecL Lo Lhe acqulslLlon, possesslon, or use of
flrearms . . . and LhaL Lhls LlLle ls noL lnLended Lo dlscourage or ellmlnaLe
Lhe prlvaLe ownershlp or use of flrearms by law-abldlng clLlzens for
lawful purposes, or provlde for Lhe lmposlLlon by lederal regulaLlon of
any procedures or requlremenLs oLher Lhan Lhose reasonably necessary
Lo lmplemenL and effecLuaLe Lhe provlslons of Lhls LlLle.
1he menLally lll are noL lnvarlably dlsposed Lo crlmlnal or anLlsoclal behavlor. MosL can and do lead
producLlve, law-abldlng llves and safeLy and responslbly exerclse Lhe rlghLs and responslblllLles of
Amerlcan clLlzenshlp. Congress should Lherefore revlslL Lhe CCA's menLal healLh provlslons and
prescrlbe more deflnlLe rules, Laklng lnLo accounL currenL emplrlcal evldence and Lhe sLaLe of Lhe arL ln
sclenLlflc undersLandlng of menLal lllness and how lL relaLes Lo a rlsk of vlolence.
II. 8A1IL's Current kegu|at|ons and S1's Suggested Changes
A. CurrenL 8egulaLlons
CurrenLly, 8A1lL regulaLlons deflne ad[udlcaLed as a menLal defecLlve" as:
(a) A deLermlnaLlon by a courL, board, commlsslon, or oLher lawful
auLhorlLy LhaL a person, as a resulL of marked subnormal lnLelllgence, or
menLal lllness, lncompeLency, condlLlon, or dlsease:
(1) ls a danger Lo hlmself or Lo oLhers, or
(2) Lacks Lhe menLal capaclLy Lo conLracL or manage hls own affalrs.
(b) 1he Lerm shall lnclude--
(1) A flndlng of lnsanlLy by a courL ln a crlmlnal case, and

32
1hls ls preclsely Lhe lnslnuaLlon 31 makes ln suggesLlng LhaL ad[udlcaLlons and commlLmenLs perLalnlng Lo
mlnors should counL: LxpllclLly lncludlng such ad[udlcaLlons or commlLmenLs wlLhln Lhe deflnlLlon of Lhese Lerms
may resulL ln sLaLe enLlLles provldlng addlLlonal records Lo Lhe nlCS LhaL may affecL fuLure nlCS background checks
and may have publlc safeLy beneflLs." 79 led. 8eg. 7776. ?eL 31 conLalns absoluLely no lndlcaLlon LhaL Congress
endorsed Lhls vlew of Lhe CCA or how lL would ln any sense conLrlbuLe Lo publlc safeLy, oLher Lhan slmply resulLlng
ln more nlCS denlals.
13
(2) 1hose persons found lncompeLenL Lo sLand Lrlal or found noL gullLy
by reason of lack of menLal responslblllLy pursuanL Lo arLlcles 30a and
72b of Lhe unlform Code of MlllLary !usLlce, 10 u.S.C. 830a, 876b.
33

CommlLLed Lo a menLal lnsLlLuLlon" ls deflned as:
A formal commlLmenL of a person Lo a menLal lnsLlLuLlon by a courL,
board, commlsslon, or oLher lawful auLhorlLy. 1he Lerm lncludes a
commlLmenL Lo a menLal lnsLlLuLlon lnvolunLarlly. 1he Lerm lncludes
commlLmenL for menLal defecLlveness or menLal lllness. lL also lncludes
commlLmenLs for oLher reasons, such as for drug use. 1he Lerm does
noL lnclude a person ln a menLal lnsLlLuLlon for observaLlon or a
volunLary admlsslon Lo a menLal lnsLlLuLlon.
34

MenLal lnsLlLuLlon[s]" lnclude menLal healLh faclllLles, menLal hosplLals, sanlLarlums,
psychlaLrlc faclllLles, and oLher faclllLles LhaL provlde dlagnoses by llcensed professlonals of menLal
reLardaLlon or menLal lllness, lncludlng a psychlaLrlc ward ln a general hosplLal."
33

8. 31's Lxpanslon of Lhe CurrenL 8egulaLory ueflnlLlons
1he proposals ln 31 would expand Lhese sLandards ln a number of ways.
llrsL, Lhe ad[udlcaLlons" relevanL Lo Lhe flrsL deflnlLlon would lnclude noL [usL deLermlnaLlons,"
buL also orders" or slmllar flndlngs." 1he reason for lncludlng Lhese addlLlonal Lerms ls apparenLly Lo
accommodaLe Lhe expanded llsL of dlsquallfylng evenLs LhaL would Lrlgger Lhe CCA's dlsablllLles,
lncludlng flndlngs of noL gullLy by reason of lnsanlLy, menLal dlsease or defecL, or lack of menLal
responslblllLy by a courL ln a crlmlnal case," as well as gullLy buL menLally lll by a courL ln a crlmlnal case
. . . ." AddlLlonally, Lhe Lerm would lnclude, 1hose persons found lncompeLenL Lo sLand Lrlal by a courL
ln a crlmlnal case." noLably, Lhe underlylng charges ln Lhese proceedlngs, as well as Lhe cause or
duraLlon of Lhe defecLlveness," would be lrrelevanL. All such occurrences would be lncluded, wheLher
or noL Lhe underlylng charge reflecLed vlolenL Lendencles or Lhe cause of Lhe lmpalrmenL was chronlc or
permanenL. ApparenLly, a person could face a llfeLlme prohlblLlon for havlng been found lncompeLenL
Lo sLand Lrlal for shopllfLlng or wrlLlng bad checks, even lf compeLency was laLer resLored.
8egardlng commlLmenLs," Lhe maln dlfference would be LhaL an lnvolunLary commlLmenL for
ouLpaLlenL LreaLmenL" would expressly be lncluded ln Lhe deflnlLlon. Cnce agaln, Lhe underlylng
reason for or clrcumsLances of Lhe commlLmenL, or Lhe sLandard of law under whlch lL occurred, would
be lrrelevanL Lo Lhe deLermlnaLlon. 1he currenL language sLaLlng LhaL commlLmenLs" do noL lnclude
Lhose ln a menLal lnsLlLuLlon for observaLlon would be modlfled Lo exclude Lhose ln a menLal lnsLlLuLlon

33
27 C.l.8. 478.11.
34
lJ.
33
lJ.
14
solely" for observaLlon or evaluaLlon. Why solely" was added ls noL explalned. Seemlngly, however, a
person ln a hosplLal for psychlaLrlc observaLlon who also happened Lo requlre medlcal LreaLmenL would
no longer be excluded from Lhe deflnlLlon of commlLmenL," no maLLer whaL Lhe clrcumsLances.
III. S1 Wou|d Amp||fy Current rob|ems and Introduce New Cnes
A. roblems wlLh 8A1lL's CurrenL 8egulaLlons
8A1lL's currenL deflnlLlons of dlsquallfylng ad[udlcaLlons" and commlLmenLs" ralse a number
of concerns. llrsL, as ls clear from Lhe precedlng dlscusslon on Lhe meanlng of Lhe sLaLuLory Lerms, and
lndeed from 31 lLself, 8A1lL's regulaLlons are vague, lnconslsLenL wlLh Lhe underlylng sLaLuLe and
federal case law, and lnLerpreLed and applled lnconslsLenLly. Also, Lhe myrlad underlylng federal and
sLaLe procedures LhaL can poLenLlally Lrlgger a dlsablllLy under 8A1lL's currenL deflnlLlons apply Lo a
wlde varleLy of clrcumsLances, a number of whlch do noL requlre or have any bearlng on a person's
propenslLy for vlolence or Lake lnLo accounL Lhe duraLlon of Lhe menLal lmpalrmenL. 1hese procedures
also feaLure varylng degrees of due process. 8y lLs express Lerms, moreover, 8A1lL's deflnlLlon of
ad[udlcaLed as a menLal defecLlve" lncludes a deLermlnaLlon LhaL a person ls unable Lo conLracL or
manage hls affalrs, even ln Lhe absence of any lndlcaLlon of dangerousness or of a grave, pervaslve, and
permanenL dlsablllLy. 8A1lL offers no [usLlflcaLlon for Lhls.
1he absurdlLy and ln[usLlce of 8A1lL's currenL approach ls well lllusLraLed by Lhe ueparLmenL of
veLerans Affalrs' (vA) unLenable pracLlce of reporLlng Lo Lhe naLlonal lnsLanL Crlmlnal 8ackground Check
SysLem daLabase (nlCS) as ad[udlcaLed as a menLal defecLlve" all persons recelvlng vA beneflLs who are
asslgned a flduclary Lo help Lhem manage Lhose beneflLs. 1he vA's own webslLe acknowledges Lhls
pracLlce and Lhe consequences of such an appolnLmenL for Lhe beneflclary's Second AmendmenL
rlghLs.
36
1o have a flduclary appolnLed, a beneflclary does noL have Lo be deLermlned Lo be a danger Lo
self or oLhers or Lo be lncompeLenL ln any sense relevanL Lo Lhe person's propenslLy for vlolence or
ablllLy Lo funcLlon generally. 8aLher, Lhe person need only requlre asslsLance wlLh managlng hls or her
flnances. lndeed, Lhe vA's webslLe noLes LhaL flduclarles are generally famlly members or frlends and
LhaL appolnLmenL of a flduclary does noL affecL oLher lmporLanL rlghLs, such as Lhe rlghL Lo voLe or Lo
enLer lnLo legally-blndlng conLracLs. lL doesn'L even affecL Lhe person's flnances oLher Lhan wlLh respecL
Lo vA beneflLs. Slmply puL, whaLever Lhe lncompeLency" mlghL be LhaL [usLlfles a flduclary
appolnLmenL, lL does noL [usLlfy an across-Lhe-board ban on Lhe exerclse of a fundamenLal rlghL.
LeglslaLlon has been lnLroduced LhaL would address Lhls lssue.
37
?eL whlle a verslon of Lhls
leglslaLlon has been passed by Lhe Pouse of 8epresenLaLlves,
38
lL has noL been enacLed lnLo law.

36
5ee vA llduclary rogram, hLLp://beneflLs.va.gov/flduclary/beneflclary.asp (lasL vlslLed leb. 10, 2014).
37
5ee veLerans Second AmendmenL roLecLlon AcL, lnLroduced ln Lhe 113
Lh
Congress by 8ep. SLeve SLockman (8-
1x) as P.8. 377, ovolloble aL hLLp://beLa.congress.gov/blll/113Lh/house-blll/377/LexL.
38
5ee n8A-lLA AlerL, vetetoos 5ecooJ AmeoJmeot klqbts 8lll losses u.5. noose, 5eoote compooloo 8lll
lottoJoceJ, CcL. 14, 2011, ovolloble ot hLLp://www.nralla.org/leglslaLlon/federal-leglslaLlon/2011/10/veLeran's-
second-amendmenL-rlghLs-blll.aspx?s=veLerans+Second+AmendmenL+roLecLlon+AcL&sL=&ps=.
13
Meanwhlle, many who have borne arms on behalf of Lhelr counLry, and many who have been serlously
ln[ured dolng so, are needlessly and shamefully belng deprlved of Lhelr Second AmendmenL rlghLs.
1he prlmary mechanlsm for enforclng Lhe CCA's menLal healLh sLandards ls Lhe reporLlng of
dlsquallfylng lnformaLlon by federal and sLaLe agencles Lo Lhe l8l's nlCS daLabase. lollowlng Lhe 2007
rampage aL vlrglnla 1ech, Congress enacLed Lhe nlCS lmprovemenLs AmendmenLs AcL of 2007
39
(nlAA)
Lo lmprove sLaLes' reporLlng of Lhls lnformaLlon. Slnce LhaL Llme, n8A-lLA has been lnsLrumenLal ln
helplng Lhe sLaLes pass leglslaLlon Lo lmplemenL Lhls law, whlch conLalns provlslons almed boLh aL
reporLlng dlsquallfylng lnformaLlon and aL provldlng rellef from Lhe resulLanL flrearm dlsablllLles for
Lhose so reporLed.
60
lndeed, n8A-lLA ls one of Lhe few organlzaLlons (lf noL Lhe only one) Lo have
creaLed model leglslaLlon for Lhls purpose.
1hls experlence has LaughL us a number of lessons concernlng Lhe pracLlcal problems wlLh
lmplemenLlng 8A1lL's menLal healLh deflnlLlons Lhrough nlCS. llrsL, unLll recenLly, few sLaLes reporLed
any records Lo nlCS based on Lhe CCA's menLal healLh dlsquallflers because of prlvacy concerns and Lhe
pracLlcal dlfflculLles of ldenLlfylng, locaLlng, and Lransferrlng relevanL records.
61
Second, sLaLes have a
wlde varleLy of legal procedures LhaL may lnvolve maklng a deLermlnaLlon abouL an lndlvldual's menLal
healLh sLaLus,
62
and sLaLe offlclals are ofLen unsure whlch of Lhose procedures Lrlggers Lhe dlsablllLles of
Lhe CCA and Lherefore should be reporLed. 1hlrd, leglslaLlon lmplemenLlng Lhe nlAA can aLLracL
opposlLlon from pro-gun consLlLuencles LhaL belleve, rlghLly or wrongly, LhaL volunLary dlsclosure of
menLal healLh lssues by persons Lo medlcal professlonals could resulL ln a loss of Second AmendmenL
rlghLs. lourLh, of course, are flnanclal conslderaLlons, whlch can be somewhaL offseL by granLs avallable
Lo sLaLes LhaL are compllanL wlLh Lhe rellef-from-dlsablllLles provlslons of Lhe nlAA. A 2012 reporL by Lhe

39
ub. L. 110-180, 121 SLaL. 2339 (2008).
60
A search of Lhe Lerm nlAA" or nlCS lmprovemenL AmendmenLs AcL" on n8A-lLA's webslLe, nralla.org, wlll
reveal dozens of arLlcles and alerLs ln whlch we demonsLraLe supporL for nlAA lmplemenLaLlon leglslaLlon ln Lhe
sLaLes.
61
We are aware of Lhe pendlng rulemaklng by Lhe ueparLmenL of PealLh and Puman Servlces -- publlshed !anuary
7, 2014, aL 79 led. 8eg. 784 -- LhaL seeks Lo clarlfy LhaL Lhe PealLh lnsurance orLablllLy and AccounLablllLy AcL
rlvacy 8ule does noL prohlblL sLaLes from reporLlng Lo nlCS Lhe names and cerLaln ldenLlfylng lnformaLlon of
lndlvlduals sub[ecL Lo Lhe menLal healLh prohlblLlons of Lhe CCA. n8A-lLA has noL commenLed on LhaL proposal, as
we do noL ob[ecL Lo Lhe reporLlng of prohlblLed persons Lo nlCS, provlded LhaL Lhe bases of Lhe prohlblLlons are
[usLlflable and sufflclenLly Lallored Lo cover only leglLlmaLely dangerous lndlvlduals. Cur focus, ln oLher words, ls
on Lhe prohlblLlons Lhemselves, noL on prevenLlng prohlblLed persons from belng reporLed. We also recognlze
LhaL wheLher or noL a prohlblLed person ls reporLed Lo nlCS, LhaL lndlvldual remalns sub[ecL Lo Lhe legal penalLles
for lllegal acqulslLlon or possesslon of a flrearm. 1hus, alLhough we have mlsglvlngs abouL 8A1lL's currenL
lnLerpreLaLlon of Lhe CCA's menLal healLh prohlblLlons, we endorse sLaLes enacLlng nlAA lmplemenLaLlon laws so
LhaL prohlblLed lndlvlduals have an effecLlve means of obLalnlng rellef from flrearm-relaLed dlsablllLles under boLh
federal and sLaLe laws.
62
5ee, e.q., 1reaLmenL Advocacy CenLer sopto noLe 6.
16
unlLed SLaLes CovernmenL AccounLablllLy Cfflce deLalled Lhese and oLher barrlers sLaLes have
encounLered ln reporLlng Lo nlCS persons prohlblLed because of dlsquallfylng menLal healLh hlsLorles.
63

1he maln beneflL of Lhe nlAA from n8A-lLA's sLandpolnL ls LhaL lL provldes a means for persons
sub[ecL Lo Lhe menLal healLh dlsquallflers of Lhe CCA Lo obLaln rellef from dlsablllLles Lhrough flllng a
peLlLlon wlLh a courL or oLher ad[udlcaLlve auLhorlLy. unless rellef ls avallable, Lhe menLal healLh
dlsquallflers of Lhe CCA are effecLlvely permanenL. 1hls ls so even for persons who have never posed a
rlsk of harm, or who have recovered, or who are belng successfully LreaLed, are funcLlonlng well, and
pose no lncreased rlsk Lo Lhemselves or oLhers.
neverLheless, obLalnlng effecLlve resLoraLlon of Second AmendmenL rlghLs can sLlll be
compllcaLed and dlfflculL, and Lhe rules vary dependlng on wheLher Lhe orlglnal dlsquallflcaLlon arose as
a resulL of federal or sLaLe acLlon. lor example, concernlng records reporLed by Lhe federal governmenL,
rellef can be obLalned a number of ways. lL may occur because Lhe orlglnal proceedlng was seL aslde,
Lhe records Lhereof were expunged, Lhe person was found by an ad[udlcaLlve auLhorlLy Lo no longer
suffer from Lhe underlylng condlLlon or Lo be rehablllLaLed, or Lhe underlylng flndlng lacked cerLaln due
process proLecLlons.
64
lederal enLlLles LhaL lmpose dlsquallfylng ad[udlcaLlons and commlLmenLs,
moreover, are requlred by Lhe nlAA Lo esLabllsh procedures for rellef from Lhe menLal healLh
dlsquallflers of Lhe CCA.
63
lederal law also has anoLher more general resLoraLlon provlslon for flrearm
dlsablllLles lmposed under Lhe CCA,
66
buL peLlLlons under LhaL provlslon perLalnlng Lo lndlvlduals have
for years been blocked by an approprlaLlons rlder LhaL prohlblLs Lhelr conslderaLlon.
67

lf Lhe person ls prohlblLed because of an ad[udlcaLlon or commlLmenL reporLed Lo nlCS by a
sLaLe enLlLy, on Lhe oLher hand, Lhe only paLh Lo rellef from Lhe dlsablllLles lmposed by Lhe CCA ls
Lhrough a sLaLe rellef procedure lmplemenLed ln accordance wlLh secLlon 103 of Lhe nlAA and cerLlfled
by 8A1lL. Accordlng Lo lnformaLlon n8A-lLA recelved from 8A1lL ln lebruary 2014, however, only
abouL half Lhe sLaLes have such a procedure. Maklng maLLers even more compllcaLed, a number of
sLaLes have mechanlsms for rellef from menLal healLh-relaLed flrearm dlsablllLles lmposed under sLaLe

63
Cov'L AccounLablllLy Cfc., 8pL. no. CAC-12-684, Coo coottol. 5botloq ltomlsloq ltoctlces ooJ Assessloq
loceotlves coolJ 8ettet losltloo Iostlce to Asslst 5totes lo ltovlJloq kecotJs fot 8ockqtoooJ cbecks, !uly 2012,
ovolloble ot hLLp://www.gao.gov/asseLs/600/392432.pdf.
64
5ee 121 SLaL. 2339, 2362.
63
lJ. aL 2369-70.
66
18 u.S.C. 923(c).
67
5ee 1lLle ll of Lhe ConsolldaLed ApproprlaLlons AcL, 2014, ub. L. 113-76, 128 SLaL. 3 (2014).
17
law LhaL are noL consldered compllanL wlLh Lhe nlAA. ersons who successfully navlgaLe Lhose
procedures are accordlngly safe from sLaLe prosecuLlons buL noL federal prosecuLlons.
68

8. 31's AggravaLlon and Lxpanslon of CurrenL roblems
Were 31 Lo be enacLed as wrlLLen, lL would only make Lhese problems worse and lnLroduce
new ones.
As noLed ln Lhe above case law analysls, a number of courLs have already lndlcaLed LhaL Lhe
sLandards 8A1lL seeks Lo lmpose are noL supporLed or auLhorlzed by Lhe CCA lLself. Lven lf 8A1lL's
pollcy preferences were sound, Lhey would sLlll have Lo be auLhorlzed by Congress. 8A1lL cannoL
enlarge Lhe bounds of a sLaLuLe Congress enacLed merely because lL Lhlnks dolng so ls a good ldea.
Moreover, Lo Lhe degree 8A1lL seeks Lo add ouLpaLlenL" commlLmenLs Lo Lhe deflnlLlon of Lhe
CCA's dlsquallfylng procedures, lL ls relylng on a concepL LhaL was almosL cerLalnly unknown Lo Lhe
Congress LhaL passed Lhe CCA. 1he orlglns of ouLpaLlenL commlLmenL ln Lhe unlLed SLaLes are ofLen
aLLrlbuLed Lo Lhe 1966 federal appellaLe courL case of loke v. cometoo,
69
whlch suggesLed LhaL
lnvolunLarlly hosplLallzed psychlaLrlc paLlenLs had a rlghL Lo be LreaLed ln Lhe leasL resLrlcLlve alLernaLlve
seLLlng LhaL meL Lhelr needs. 1hls led Lo addlLlonal lower courL declslons ln Lhe 1970s LhaL requlred
courLs Lo conslder avallable alLernaLlves Lo conflnemenL Lo menLal hosplLals.
70
?eL amongsL menLal
healLh professlonals Lhemselves, dlscusslons of ouLpaLlenL commlLmenL were rare before Lhe 1980s.
71

Speclflc sLaLuLory auLhorlLy for ouLpaLlenL commlLmenL ln Lhe unlLed SLaLes appears Lo have arlsen ln
Lhe mld-1980s.
72
lf ouLpaLlenL commlLmenL were noL avallable or belng regularly pracLlced ln Lhe unlLed
SLaLes as of 1968, Lhe lnLenLlon Lo use lL as Lhe basls of a prohlblLlon ln Lhe CCA can hardly be lmpuLed
Lo Lhe Congress LhaL enacLed LhaL law.
!usL how much ouLpaLlenL LreaLmenL Lhe new deflnlLlons would reach, moreover, ls far from
clear. 8esldes Lhe facL LhaL Lhe laws on ouLpaLlenL commlLmenL ln Lhe unlLed SLaLes vary wldely,
73
some
sorL of mandaLory courL-ordered counsellng or LreaLmenL ls common ln a wlde range of legal

68
5ee 1ylet v. nolJet, no. 1:12-Cv-323, 2013 WL 336831 (W.u. Mlch. !an. 29, 2013) (quoLlng a leLLer 8A1lL senL Lo
Lhe plalnLlff sLaLlng LhaL hls federal flrearm rlghLs may noL be resLored unLll hls sLaLe has an A1l approved rellef
from dlsablllLles program ln place").
69
364 l2d 637 (uC Clr. 1966).
70
5ee aul S. Appelbaum, low & lsycblotty. leost kesttlctlve Altetootlve kevlslteJ. OlmsteoJ's uocettolo MooJote
fot commoolty-8oseJ cote, 30 sychlaLrlc Servlces, vol. 30, no. 10 (1999).
71
5ee !effrey L. Celler, 1he evoluLlon of ouLpaLlenL commlLmenL ln Lhe uSA: lrom conundrum Lo quagmlre, 29
lnLer'l !. of L. and sychlaLry 234 (2006).
72
Cerry McCafferLy & !eanne uolley, lovoloototy Ootpotleot commltmeot. Ao upJote, 14 MenLal and hyslcal
ulsablllLy Law 8eporLer 277 (1990).
73
5ee 1reaLmenL Advocacy CenLer sopto noLe 6.
18
proceedlngs, from cusLody dlspuLes Lo dlverslonary dlsposlLlons for relaLlvely mlnor and non-vlolenL
crlmlnal offenses such as slmple possesslon of marl[uana or drlvlng whlle under Lhe lnfluence. noLably,
Lhe proposed deflnlLlon of commlLmenL would lnclude procedures noL [usL based on menLal lllness, buL
also . a commlLmenL Lo a menLal lnsLlLuLlon for oLher reasons, such as for drug use."
74
8ecause Lhe
currenL broad deflnlLlon of menLal lnsLlLuLlon" would be carrled over lnLo Lhe new rule, Lhe proposal
could encompass a wlde range of courL-ordered LreaLmenL for a wlde range of clrcumsLances, many of
whlch would noL requlre any flndlng of dangerousness or grave dlsablllLy. As Lhe example of Lhe
ueparLmenL of veLerans Affalrs lllusLraLes, moreover, Lhose who erroneously conslder flrearm
possesslon a per se rlsk Lo publlc safeLy may well glve Lhe provlslons a very broad readlng.
As declslons llke noosel and keblooJet lndlcaLe, nelLher Congress nor 8A1lL has endless
dlscreLlon Lo enacL gun conLrol by lnvoklng Lhe shlbboleLh of menLal lllness as a proxy for
dangerousness. MenLal healLh professlonals, as dlscussed below, refuLe broad generallzaLlons abouL Lhe
dangerousness of Lhe menLally lll. ConsLlLuLlonal problems are llkely Lo arlse where a lack of sLrong
[usLlflcaLlon collldes wlLh marglnal due process ln Lhe deprlvaLlon of a fundamenLal rlghL.
erhaps Lhe mosL Lroublesome aspecL of 8A1lL's proposal, however, ls Lhe pracLlcal effecL lL
could have on Lhose ln need of menLal healLh LreaLmenL. lronlcally, 31 could acLually lncrease
whaLever dangers mlghL be assoclaLed wlLh unLreaLed menLal lllness by creaLlng dlslncenLlves for people
Lo seek help for or reveal Lo care provlders sympLoms LhaL mlghL suggesL menLal lllness. Whlle Lhe
proposal, llke Lhe currenL regulaLlons, speclflcally excludes volunLary LreaLmenL, a person mlghL
neverLheless fear LhaL dlscloslng sympLoms Lo a care provlder or oLher confldanL could lead Lo more
drasLlc acLlon LhaL would Lrlgger a reporLable evenL.
73

MenLal healLh professlonals, law enforcemenL agencles, and publlc lnsLlLuLlons such as schools
and colleges are lncreaslngly vlgllanL for slgns of dlsLress and dangerousness ln lndlvlduals. ?eL Lhe
percepLlon of many, especlally ln Lhe pro-gun communlLy, ls LhaL Lhls has led Lo overreacLlons Lo
relaLlvely harmless behavlor. lor example, cerLaln sLaLes have recenLly lnLroduced leglslaLlon ln
response Lo prlmary school zero Lolerance" dlsclpllnary pollces LhaL ensnare sLudenLs for harmless
behavlor LhaL suggesLs Lhe mere ldea of a flrearm.
76
Lxample have lncluded drawlng plcLures of

74
79 led. 8eg. 777.
73
8roadenlng gun reporLlng crlLerla ln federal and sLaLe law, however well lnLenLloned, could have Lhe effecL of
creaLlng furLher barrlers Lo Lhe wllllngness of lndlvlduals Lo seek LreaLmenL and help when Lhey mosL need lL. An
lndlvldual who belleves LhaL parLlclpaLlng ln menLal healLh LreaLmenL could sub[ecL hlm or herself Lo placemenL ln
a daLabase malnLalned by Lhe l8l or Lhe sLaLe pollce wlll be hlghly relucLanL lf noL ouLrlghL reslsLanL Lo parLlclpaLlng
ln such care. SoluLlons Lo gun vlolence assoclaLed wlLh menLal lllness lle ln lmprovlng access Lo LreaLmenL, noL ln
erecLlng furLher barrlers Lo LreaLmenL." naLlonal Alllance on MenLal lllness, vloleoce, Meotol llloess ooJ Coo
kepottloq lows (March 2013), ovolloble ot
hLLp://www.naml.org/1emplaLe.cfm?SecLlon=nAMl_ollcy_laLform&1emplaLe=/ConLenLManagemenL/ConLenLul
splay.cfm&ConLenLlu=133162.
76
5ee P.8. 7029, 116Lh Leg., 8eg. Sess. (lla. 2014), P.8. 2331, 34Lh Leg., 2d 8eg. Sess. (Ckla. 2014).
19
flrearms, polnLlng flnger guns" aL one anoLher, wearlng cloLhes wlLh lmages of flrearms or LexL from Lhe
Second AmendmenL, and even chewlng food lnLo whaL a school employee LhoughL was Lhe shape of a
flrearm.
77
Also, recenLly enacLed sLaLe laws seek Lo requlre menLal healLh professlonals Lo reporL whaL
Lhey conslder dangerous lndlvlduals Lo auLhorlLles speclflcally so Lhe auLhorlLles can deLermlne lf acLlon
agalnsL sLaLe-lssued flrearms llcenses ls warranLed.
78
1he proposed rule would slmply be one more
reason for lndlvlduals who value Lhelr rlghL Lo keep and bear arms Lo be wary of reveallng any sorL of
menLal dlsLress Lo anoLher lndlvldual, parLlcularly a medlcal care provlder.
Slmply puL, Lhe rule reLrenches and magnlfles problems already presenLed by Lhe exlsLlng
sLaLuLory and regulaLory scheme.
IV. 1he GCA's Menta| nea|th rov|s|ons are |n Need of Updat|ng and C|ar|f|cat|on, but 1h|s |s a
Iob for Congress, Not 8A1IL
A. 1he CCA's MenLal PealLh rovlslons, and 8A1lL's 8egulaLlons lmplemenLlng 1hem,
Are Lhe roducLs of AnLlquaLed ALLlLudes 1oward MenLal PealLh
needless Lo say, developmenLs ln law and medlclne do noL Lrack each oLher preclsely, buL Lhe
CCA's menLal healLh-relaLed prohlblLlons are clearly rellcs of a bygone era and should be revlslLed by
Congress ln llghL of modern advancemenLs ln Lhe undersLandlng of menLal lllness and lLs LreaLmenL. ln
addlLlon Lo Lhe varylng, lnconslsLenL Lerms Lhose who debaLed Lhe CCA used Lo express Lhelr vlews on
menLal lllness, case law from Lhe perlod of Lhe CCA's enacLmenL reflecLs a slmllarly daLed ouLlook.
lor example, Lerms LhaL are Loday wldely recognlzed as pe[oraLlve and demeanlng were wldely
used by courLs ln Lhe 1960s as legal and medlcal Lerms of arL. 1he Supreme CourL ln 1961, for example,
descrlbed Lhe defendanL ln a murder Lrlal as a LhlrLy-Lhree-year-old menLal defecLlve of Lhe moron class
wlLh an lnLelllgence quoLlenL of slxLy-four and a menLal age of nlne Lo nlne and a half years."
79
LxperL
wlLnesses for Lhe sLaLe had appralsed Lhe man as a 'hlgh moron' and 'a raLher hlgh grade menLally
defecLlve ..'"
80
ln 1966, Lhe CourL observed LhaL Lhe Ceorgla ConsLlLuLlon barred ldloLs and lnsane
persons" from offlce.
81
A ulsLrlcL of Columbla case from 1966 recounLed, Lhe prosecuLor lnqulred of ur.
8uch wheLher appellanL, wlLh an l.C. of 69, was an ldloL, lmbeclle or moron."
82
ur. 8uch, answer[ed] ln

77
n8A-lLA, A ketoto to 5oolty? lowmokets losb 8ock Aqolost 2eto-1oletooce Aboses, lebruary 7, 2014,
hLLp://www.nralla.org/leglslaLlon/sLaLe-leglslaLlon/2014/2/a-reLurn-Lo-sanlLy-lawmakers-push-back-agalnsL-zero-
Lolerance-abuses.aspx?s=a+reLurn+Lo+sanlLy&sL=&ps= .
78
5ee n.?. MenLal Pyg. Law 9.46, 430 lll. Comp. SLaL. 63/8.1, 66/103.
79
colombe v. coooectlcot, 367 u.S. 368, 620 (1961)
80
lJ.
81
8ooJ v. lloyJ, 383 u.S. 116, 129 (1966).
82
kloq v. uolteJ 5totes, 372 l.2d 383, 397 (u.C. Clr. 1966).
20
Lhe negaLlve" and explalned LhaL such Lerms usually connoLe a menLal defecL perslsLlng slnce
chlldhood, whereas ln appellanL's case Lhe slgnlflcanL polnL ls LhaL Lhere was a laLer decllne from an
earller hlgher l.C., probably on Lhe basls of proLracLed use of alcohol and organlc braln damage."
83

SomewhaL lronlcally, Lhe Supreme CourL ln 1968 found a [ury lnsLrucLlon LhaL perLalned Lo a perverLed
and deranged menLal condlLlon" lacked sufflclenL deflnlLeness because lLs wordlng would seem Lo
ellmlnaLe a flndlng of lnsanlLy as Lo any persons oLher Lhan ldloLs or persons under Lhe lmpacL of
psychoLlc panlc or compleLe halluclnaLlon."
84
1he CourL even chlded, 1he charge as glven ln Lhls case
appears Lo us llLLle lmprovemenL on LhaL glven by !usLlce 1racy ln 1724, LhaL a man could escape
punlshmenL lf he 'doLh noL know whaL he ls dolng, no more Lhan an lnfanL, Lhan a bruLe, or a wlld
beasL.'"
83

1hese cases, besldes underscorlng noosel's narrow readlng of Lhe Lerm menLal defecLlve,"
clearly lndlcaLe LhaL aLLlLudes Loward menLal lllness have advanced ln Lhe lnLervenlng years. lndeed,
Congress lLself has recognlzed Lhls, and ln 2010 passed a blll LhaL updaLed references Lo whaL are now
known as lnLellecLual dlsablllLles" ln federal healLh, educaLlon, and labor laws.
86
1he blll was called
8osa's Law, ln reference Lo a glrl from Maryland wlLh uown Syndrome.
87
Per older broLher explalned Lo
Lhe medla, WhaL you call my slsLer ls how you wlll LreaL her. lf you belleve she's 'reLarded,' lL lnvlLes
LaunLlng, sLlgma. lL lnvlLes bullylng and lL also lnvlLes Lhe slammed doors of belng LreaLed wlLh respecL
and dlgnlLy."
88
A slmllar law, Lhe 21sL CenLury Language AcL of 2012,"
89
was enacLed on uecember 28,
2012, and removed Lhe ouLdaLed Lerm lunaLlc" and slmllar references from federal law.
ln LesLlmony Lo Congress, a menLal healLh advocacy group slmllarly observed of Lhe CCA's
menLal healLh Lermlnology:
Lhe Lerm ad[udlcaLed as a menLal defecLlve" ls boLh sLlgmaLlzlng and
lncompaLlble wlLh modern Lermlnology used ln Lhe dlagnosls and
LreaLmenL of people wlLh menLal lllness. no sLaLe offlclal charged wlLh
carrylng ouL Lhe requlremenLs of Lhe 8rady blll could posslbly know
whaL Lhls means, as lL ls a Lerm LhaL has been obsoleLe for close Lo 40
years. We have recelved emalls and oLher communlcaLlons ln Lhe lasL

83
lJ.
84
u.5. v. 5mltb, 404 l.2d 720, 723 (1968).
83
lJ.
86
8osa's Law, ub. L. 111-236, 124 SLaL. 2643 (2010).
87
Madlson ark, cooqtess ellmlootes tbe k-wotJ, Cnn healLh.com, SepL. 27, 2010,
hLLp://LhecharL.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/27/congress-ellmlnaLes-Lhe-r-word/.
88
lJ.
89
ub. L. 112-231, 126 SLaL. 1619 (2012).
21
few weeks from people who are lncredulous LhaL such a Lerm would sLlll
be used ln federal law.
90

8. 1he SLereoLype of MenLal lllness Leadlng Lo vlolence ls lnaccuraLe
?eL Lhls ls noL [usL a quesLlon of hurLful semanLlcs. Cf even more lmporLance ls LhaL Lhe very
broad generallzaLlons Lhe CCA and 8A1lL's lmplemenLlng regulaLlons reflecL abouL Lhe llnk beLween
menLal lllness and dangerousness (generallzaLlons LhaL 31 would expand even furLher) slmply do noL
comporL wlLh modern sclenLlflc knowledge. 1he consensus of menLal healLh professlonals ls LhaL menLal
lllness and menLal dlsorders are noL lnLrlnslcally llnked Lo vlolence (wheLher gun vlolence or oLherwlse).
A comprehenslve reporL from Lhe unlLed SLaLes Surgeon Ceneral ln 1999 noLed Lhe progress
LhaL had been made Lo LhaL polnL ln undersLandlng menLal lllness and debunked Lhe common
sLereoLype of menLal lllness as correlaLlng wlLh vlolence.
91
1he reporL noLed LhaL durlng Lhe laLLer half
of Lhe 20
Lh
CenLury menLal lllness had carrled a greaL soclal sLlgma, especlally llnked wlLh fear of
unpredlcLable and vlolenL behavlor."
92
Well lnLo Lhe 1990s, Lhls fear of vlolence perslsLed and
worsened, even as Lhe publlc became more sophlsLlcaLed abouL oLher faceLs of menLal lllness.
93
?eL
accordlng Lo Lhe reporL, Lhe overall rlsk of vlolence ls low" and cenLers around speclflc clrcumsLances,
lncludlng menLal dlsorders coexlsLlng wlLh subsLance abuse dlsorders, as well as severe menLal lllness,
such as psychosls, especlally when Lhe lndlvldual ls non-compllanL wlLh LreaLmenL.
94
[1]o puL Lhls all ln
perspecLlve," Lhe reporL sLaLed, Lhe overall conLrlbuLlon of menLal dlsorders Lo Lhe LoLal level of
vlolence ln socleLy ls excepLlonally small," and mosL people should have llLLle reason Lo fear vlolence
from Lhose wlLh menLal lllness, even ln lLs mosL severe forms . . . ."
93

lollowlng Lhe horrlflc mass murder aL Sandy Pook LlemenLary School ln uecember 2012, Lhe
Amerlcan sychologlcal AssoclaLlon convened a panel of experLs speclflcally Lo sLudy Lhe lssues of
predlcLlng and prevenLlng flrearm vlolence. 1he resulLlng reporL re[ecLed broad generallzaLlons, noL [usL
abouL menLal lllness and vlolence overall, buL abouL menLal lllness and gun vlolence speclflcally:

90
leJetol Coo kepottloq kepoltemeots ooJ 1belt Appllcotloo to leople wltb Meotol llloess: neotloq 8efote tbe
uomestlc lollcy 5obcomm. of tbe n. Ovetslqbt ooJ Covt kefotm comm. 113Lh Cong. (May 10, 2007) (LesLlmony of
8on Ponberg, ulrecLor of ollcy and Legal Affalrs, 1he naLlonal Alllance on MenLal lllness (nAMl)), ovolloble ot
hLLp://www.naml.org/ConLenL/ConLenL Croups/L-
news/20073/!une7/CverslghL_and_CovL_8eform_1esLlmony.pdf.
91
u.S. ueparLmenL of PealLh and Puman Servlces, Meotol neoltb. A kepott of tbe 5otqeoo Ceoetol, naLlonal
lnsLlLuLe of MenLal PealLh, 1999, ovolloble ot hLLp://proflles.nlm.nlh.gov/ps/access/nn88PS.pdf.
92
lJ. aL 7.
93
lJ.
94
lJ.
93
lJ. aL 7-8.
22
AlLhough many hlghly publlclzed shooLlngs have lnvolved persons wlLh
serlous menLal lllness, lL musL be recognlzed LhaL persons wlLh serlous
menLal lllness commlL only a small proporLlon of flrearm-relaLed
homlcldes, Lhe problem of gun vlolence cannoL be resolved slmply
Lhrough efforLs focused on serlous menLal lllness (WebsLer & vernlck,
2013a). lurLhermore, Lhe overwhelmlng ma[orlLy of people wlLh
serlous menLal lllness do noL engage ln vlolence Loward oLhers and
should noL be sLereoLyped as dangerous (SlroLlch, 2008).
96

1he reporL also lndlcaLed LhaL predlcLlng an lndlvldual's propenslLy for fuLure vlolence ls a
daunLlng challenge even for menLal healLh experLs: decades of research have esLabllshed LhaL Lhere ls
only a moderaLe ablllLy Lo ldenLlfy lndlvlduals llkely Lo commlL serlous acLs of vlolence."
97
lL also
cauLloned LhaL sLaLlc labels llke good guys" and bad guys," alLhough lnLulLlvely appeallng, lgnore Lhe
reallLy LhaL 'good guys' can become 'bad guys' and 'bad guys' can become 'good guys.'"
98

AnoLher arLlcle by an M.u. and h.u. who boLh serve as professors aL presLlglous schools of
psychlaLry speclflcally examlned Lhe efflcacy of laws Lo resLrlcL access flrearms among people wlLh
menLal lllness.
99
1he auLhors concluded:
1he conLrlbuLlon Lo publlc safeLy of Lhese laws ls llkely Lo be small
because only 3-3 of vlolenL acLs are aLLrlbuLable Lo serlous menLal
lllness, and mosL do noL lnvolve guns. 1he caLegorles of persons wlLh
menLal lllnesses LargeLed by Lhe laws may noL be aL hlgher rlsk of
vlolence Lhan oLher subgroups ln Lhls populaLlon. 1he laws may deLer

96
Amerlcan sychologlcal AssoclaLlon, Coo vloleoce. lteJlctloo, lteveotloo, ooJ lollcy, aL 4 (2013), ovolloble ot
hLLp://www.apa.org/pubs/lnfo/reporLs/gun-vlolence-prevenLlon.aspx.
97
lJ. aL 3. 5ee olso 1he School ShooLer: A 1P8LA1 ASSLSSMLn1 L8SLC1lvL hLLp://www.fbl.gov/sLaLs-
servlces/publlcaLlons/school-shooLer aL 1 (!"#$ [threat assessment and |ntervent|on] &'()* #$ +', - ./0'1#*). '1
,") $2"''* $"'',)0 '0 - 2")23*#$, '1 (-+4)0 $#4+$ /'#+,#+4 ,' ,") +)5, -('*)$2)+, 6"' 6#** 70#+4 *),"-* 8#'*)+2) ,'
- $2"''*9 !"'$) ,"#+4$ (' +', )5#$,9") (emphasls ln orlglnal), 1hreaL AssessmenL ln Schools: A Culde 1o Managlng
1hreaLenlng SlLuaLlons And 1o CreaLlng Safe School CllmaLes (May 2002) SecreL Servlce and uep'L of LducaLlon aL
21 (1he use of proflles Lo deLermlne wheLher a sLudenL ls Lhlnklng abouL or plannlng a vlolenL aLLack ls noL an
effecLlve approach Lo ldenLlfylng sLudenLs who may pose a rlsk for LargeLed vlolence. 8ellance on proflles Lo
predlcL fuLure school aLLacks carrles Lwo subsLanLlal rlsks: (1) Lhe greaL ma[orlLy of sLudenLs who flL any glven
proflle of a 'school shooLer' acLually wlll noL pose a rlsk of LargeLed vlolence, and, (2) uslng proflles wlll fall Lo
ldenLlfy some sLudenLs who ln facL pose a rlsk of vlolence, buL share few lf any characLerlsLlcs wlLh prlor
aLLackers.")
98
lJ. aL 32.
99
aul S. Appelbaum & !effrey W. Swanson, Coo lows ooJ Meotol llloess. now 5eoslble Ate tbe cotteot
kesttlctloos? 61 S?CPlA18lC SL8vlCLS 632 (2010), ovolloble ot
hLLp://ps.psychlaLryonllne.org/daLa/!ournals/SS/3912/10ps632.pdf.
23
people from seeklng LreaLmenL for fear of loslng Lhe rlghL Lo possess
flrearms and may relnforce sLereoLypes of persons wlLh menLal lllnesses
as dangerous.
100


1hey also suggesLed LhaL lf caLegorlcal resLrlcLlons proved unhelpful ln maklng a slgnlflcanL conLrlbuLlon
Lo publlc safeLy, anoLher less sLlgmaLlzlng and poLenLlally more effecLlve approach would be Lo emulaLe
sLaLes wlLh sLaLuLes LhaL allow flrearms Lo be removed from persons ln crlsls slLuaLlons, when Lhe rlsk of
vlolence ls helghLened, wheLher or noL such persons have a menLal dlsorder.
101

Slmllar references abound ln Lhe psychologlcal llLeraLure.
102
Whlle Lhe sclenLlflc landscape ls
somewhaL complex, lL ls clear LhaL broad generallzaLlons abouL menLal lllness and vlolence are
unwarranLed and unsupporLable, lf noL Lhe producL of lrraLlonal pre[udlce. CasLlng a broad neL over
sufferers of menLal lllness ln Lhe hope of caLchlng Lhe dangerous few -- as 31 would do ln a way LhaL
lnLenslfles currenL problems wlLh Lhe CCA and 8A1lL's lmplemenLlng regulaLlons - ls slmply noL
conslsLenL wlLh Lhe fundamenLal rlghLs proLecLed by Lhe Second AmendmenL.
V. NkA-ILA's kecommendat|ons
A. LeL Congress llx Lhe roblems lL Pas CreaLed
We do noL expecL Lhls commenL Lo resolve all Lhe lssues LhaL surround menLal lllness and
flrearms. 1haL ls noL our goal. 8aLher, we have endeavored more modesLly Lo lnLer[ecL hlsLory, case
law, and sclenLlflc oplnlon lnLo Lhe superflclal and one-dlmenslonal porLrayal of Lhls lssue seL forLh ln Lhe

100
lJ. aL 632.
101
lJ. aL 634.
102
5ee, e.q., naLlonal Alllance on MenLal lllness, vloleoce, Meotol llloess ooJ Coo kepottloq lows (March 2013),
ovolloble ot
hLLp://www.naml.org/1emplaLe.cfm?SecLlon=nAMl_ollcy_laLform&1emplaLe=/ConLenLManagemenL/ConLenLul
splay.cfm&ConLenLlu=133162 (1here ls wldespread agreemenL LhaL mosL people wlLh menLal lllness are noL
vlolenL."), Cold, Llza P., Coo vloleoce. lsycblotty, klsk Assessmeot, ooJ 5oclol lollcy, !. AM. ACAu. S?CPlA18? & L. 41,
no. 3, 337, 338 (2013), ovolloble ot hLLp://www.[aapl.org/conLenL/41/3/337.full (MosL people wlLh menLal lllness
are noL dangerous, and mosL dangerous people do noL have a severe menLal lllness. lndlvlduals wlLh severe menLal
lllness consLlLuLe only Lhree Lo flve percenL of perpeLraLors of lncldenLs of vlolence, noL all of whlch lnvolve guns.
1he relaLlonshlp beLween vlolence and menLal lllness ls complex, buL much of Lhe vlolence rlsk ln Lhe populaLlon of
Lhe serlously menLally lll ls aLLrlbuLable Lo Lhe comorbldlLy of subsLance use."), ConsorLlum for 8lsk-8ased llrearm
ollcy, Coos, lobllc neoltb, ooJ Meotol llloess. Ao vlJeoce-8oseJ Apptoocb fot leJetol lollcy (uec. 11, 2013), aL 4-
3 (Lhe research evldence shows LhaL Lhe large ma[orlLy of people wlLh menLal lllness do noL engage ln vlolence
agalnsL oLhers," LhaL menLal lllness alone very rarely causes vlolence," and [m]osL people wlLh serlous menLal
lllness - whlch lncludes condlLlons such as schlzophrenla and blpolar dlsorder - are never vlolenL Loward oLhers,
and are ln facL more llkely Lo be vlcLlms Lhan perpeLraLors of vlolence."), Llndsey Lewls, Meotol llloess, ltopeoslty
lot vloleoce, ooJ 1be Coo coottol Act, 11 PCuS. !. PLAL1P L. & CL'? 149, 133 (2011) (researchers agree LhaL menLal
lllness alone ls noL Lhe cause of vlolence") and 8lchard A. lrledman, vloleoce ooJ Meotol llloess -- now 5ttooq ls
tbe llok?, 333:20 nLW LnC !. MLu. 2064, 2063 (2006) (because serlous menLal lllness ls qulLe rare, lL acLually
conLrlbuLes very llLLle Lo Lhe overall raLe of vlolence ln Lhe general populaLlon, Lhe aLLrlbuLable rlsk has been
esLlmaLed Lo be 3 Lo 3 - much lower Lhan LhaL assoclaLed wlLh subsLance abuse.").
24
Lhree pages of 31. Cur hope ls LhaL 8A1lL wlll Lake serlously Lhe lnescapable facL LhaL Lhe plcLure ls far
more compllcaLed Lhan lL ls porLrayed ln 31 and reallze LhaL reform ln Lhls complex area, where law
and sclence converge, ls besL lefL Lo Lhe more Lhorough dellberaLlons of Congress.

1he pollLlcs of Lhls lssue, moreover, are noL cuL and drled. Croups LhaL feel sollclLude Loward
Lhe pllghL of Lhe menLally lll and Lhelr deslre Lo llve wlLh freedom and dlgnlLy are noL necessarlly
dlsposed Loward a broad readlng of Lhe Second AmendmenL. Croups LhaL sLrongly value Lhe rlghL Lo
keep and bear arms may noL lnsLlncLlvely undersLand LhaL Lhe menLally lll are noL necessarlly bad guys"
and LhaL Lhey may have Lhe poLenLlal Lo be good guys" who can safely exerclse Lhelr rlghLs. WlLh
proper veLLlng of Lhe lssues Lhrough leglslaLlve lnvesLlgaLlon and hearlngs, achlevlng some agreemenL
and progress beneflclal Lo all concerned mlghL well be posslble Lhrough Lhe pollLlcal process.

Congress, however unlnLenLlonally, has creaLed a mess wlLh Lhe currenL menLal healLh
provlslons of Lhe CCA. Congress ls Lherefore responslble for cleanlng up LhaL mess. 8A1lL's aLLempLs Lo
do so, even lf underLaken wlLh good lnLenLlons, sLlll have Lo remaln grounded ln Lhe sLaLuLory scheme
enacLed by Lhe peoples' elecLed represenLaLlves. Clven Lhe lnherenL flaws of Lhe CCA's raLlonale on Lhls
lssue, agency acLlon should noL proceed unLll Congress reforms and clarlfles Lhe sLaLuLory landscape.

8. 1he Way lorward Lo 8eform
Whlle n8A-lLA does noL represenL lLself as Lhe ulLlmaLe auLhorlLy on menLal healLh, readlly
avallable evldence sLrongly suggesLs LhaL leglslaLlvely caLegorlzlng some dlscreLe segmenL of Lhe
menLally lll as predlcLably dangerous ls a mlsplaced goal. As Lhe above-clLed sLudles lndlcaLe, Lhe
poLenLlal for vlolenL behavlor can arlse suddenly (and conversely, dlsslpaLe over Llme), and lndlvldual
clrcumsLances may be more relevanL Lhan cllnlcal classlflcaLlons. Congress may Lherefore flnd LhaL Lhe
Llme has come Lo abandon Lhe CCA's classlfy, reporL, and ban" approach Lo menLal healLh and lnsLead
focus on broader reforms. Such reforms could address swlfLer, more accuraLe, and readlly accesslble
dlagnosls and LreaLmenL for Lhose who suffer from menLal lllness, and educaLlon for Lhose, llke Leachers
and pollce offlcers, whose work regularly causes Lhem Lo lnLerface wlLh Lhe menLally lll.

As oLher arLlcles lndlcaLe, however, Lhls doesn'L mean LhaL pollcymakers have Lo abandon legal
soluLlons Lo Lhe rlsks flrearms can pose Lo Lhose sufferlng serlous or acuLe eplsodes of psychologlcal
dlsLress. lndlvlduallzed rlsk assessmenL ls a developlng fleld.
103
Well Lralned sLaLe and local law
enforcemenL offlclals (LLCs) can be glven mechanlsms Lhrough sLaLe laws Lo reacL Lo emergencles LhaL
arlse ln speclflc cases, and where Lhey become aware of weapons LhaL conLrlbuLe Lo Lhe rlsks, Lo see

103
5ee, e.q., l8l, sopto noLe 97 aL 21 (8aLher Lhan Lrylng Lo deLermlne Lhe "Lype" of sLudenL who may engage ln
LargeLed school vlolence, an lnqulry should focus lnsLead on a sLudenL's behavlors and communlcaLlons Lo
deLermlne lf LhaL sLudenL appears Lo be plannlng or preparlng for an aLLack. 8aLher Lhan asklng wheLher a
parLlcular sLudenL 'looks llke' Lhose who have launched school-based aLLacks before, lL ls more producLlve Lo ask
wheLher Lhe sLudenL ls on a paLh Loward a vlolenL aLLack, lf so how fasL Lhe sLudenL ls movlng Loward aLLack, and
where lnLervenLlon may be posslble.")
23
Lhose weapons are Lemporarlly removed from Lhe cusLody of hlgh-rlsk lndlvlduals. lndlana and
ConnecLlcuL, for example, already have laws LhaL allow LLCs under some clrcumsLances Lo selze flrearms
from lndlvlduals who are demonsLrably dangerous.
104
A slmllar law ls belng debaLed ln uelaware.
103


needless Lo say, n8A-lLA's vlew of Lhese laws wlll depend on Lhelr speclflcs, lncludlng Lhe
adequacy of Lhelr due process proLecLlons and llmlLs on Lhe duraLlon of Lhe deprlvaLlon of rlghLs.
neverLheless, focuslng on lndlvldual cases and presenL clrcumsLances may be a more effecLlve and
focused approach Lhan Congress' currenL caLegorlcal bans. 1hls approach also has Lhe supporL of a
number of menLal healLh experLs and advocacy groups.
106
lL ls addlLlonally conslsLenL wlLh Lhe vlew LhaL
was expressed by Lhe n8A aL leasL as far back as 1966, when lL edlLorlallzed LhaL Lhe law should focus on
lndlvlduals' acLual expresslons of harmful lnLenL.
107
lrom a fundamenLal falrness sLandpolnL, focuslng
on lndlvldual behavlor and expressed lnLenL makes beLLer sense Lhan classlfylng, sLlgmaLlzlng, and
deprlvlng a large populaLlon of generally harmless people merely ln Lhe falnL hope LhaL a dangerous few
wlll be sLopped.

C. Speclflc CommenLs on 31
lf 8A1lL, desplLe suspecL sLaLuLory auLhorlzaLlon and lack of a sound pollcy raLlonale, lnslsLs on
golng forward wlLh 31, here are n8A-lLA's speclflc recommendaLlons on LhaL proposal.

llrsL, lndlvlduals who undergo ad[udlcaLlons" or commlLmenLs" as mlnors should noL be
sub[ecL on LhaL basls Lo Lhe prohlblLlons of Lhe CCA. lederally llcensed flrearm dealers may noL sell or
dlspose of flrearms Lo mlnors ln any clrcumsLance,
108
and mlnors are prohlblLed from possesslng
handguns ln mosL clrcumsLances.
109
1o Lhe degree LhaL 8A1lL seeks Lo apply Lhe CCA's menLal healLh
prohlblLlons Lo persons who are lncapable of managlng Lhelr own affalrs," moreover, LhaL ls a legal facL
ln varlous conLexLs for mosL unemanclpaLed mlnors,
110
so applylng LhaL sLandard Lo Lhem makes no

104
lnd. Code Ann. 33-33-3-1(1)(a)(7), 33-47-14-1, Conn. Cen. SLaL. 29-38c.
103
P.8. 88, 147Lh Leg., 8eg. Sess. (ue. 2013).
106
5ee, e.q., Appelbaum & Swanson, sopto noLe 99, Am. sychlaLrlc Ass'n, Access to llteotms by leople wltb
Meotol llloess 1 (2009), ovolloble ot
hLLp://ww.psych.org/ueparLmenLs/Luu/Llbrary/AACfflclaluocumenLsand8elaLed/8esourceuocumenLs/200907.a
spx, !ames L. knoll lv, Moss ulsttoctloo. pootloq Meotol llloess wltb 'vll', Medscape, lebruary 14, 2013, ovolloble
oL hLLp://www.medscape.com/vlewarLlcle/779097.
107
5ee Amerlcan 8lfleman sopto noLe 2.
108
18 u.S.C. 922(b)(1).
109
18 u.S.C. 922(x).
110
1o clLe [usL a few examples, mlnors' conLracLs are generally voldable, e.q., kan. SLaL. Ann. 38-102, and mlnors
may be prohlblLed from: voLlng (n.P. ConsL. L. 1, arL. 11, ky. ConsL. 143, boLh seLLlng a mlnlmum age of 18
26
sense. 8A1lL has noL produced any evldence, moreover, LhaL menLal lllness ln mlnors leadlng Lo
ad[udlcaLlons or commlLmenLs ls llkely ln mosL cases Lo perslsL or lead Lo lncreased rlsks lnLo adulLhood.
llnally, mlnors faclng ad[udlcaLlons or commlLmenLs are llkely Lo have less of an appreclaLlon of Lhe
serlous collaLeral consequences lnvolved and may noL have Lhe same wherewlLhal as adulLs Lo asserL
Lhelr due process rlghLs (for example, Lo reLaln aLLorneys of Lhelr cholce or Lo hlre experL wlLnesses).

8A1lL should llmlL appllcaLlon of Lhe Lerm menLal defecLlve" Lo Lhe meanlng lL had Lo Lhe
Congress LhaL enacLed lL. 1haL ls, marked, subnormal lnLelllgence perslsLlng from chlldhood lnLo
adulLhood. 8A1lL may noL expand a Lerm LhaL was used as a medlcal and legal Lerm of arL [usL because
lL belleves Congress should have wrlLLen Lhe sLaLuLe more broadly, especlally where crlmlnal llablllLy ls
aL sLake.

no procedure should be lncluded LhaL does noL lnclude speclfled due process proLecLlons,
lncludlng Lhe rlghL Lo noLlce, Lhe rlghL Lo conLesL Lhe deLermlnaLlon aL a hearlng before a neuLral
ad[udlcaLlve auLhorlLy before lL becomes flnal and reporLable Lo nlCS, Lhe rlghL Lo counsel, and Lhe rlghL
Lo appeal Lhe orlglnal deLermlnaLlon. 8A1lL should omlL from lLs commlLmenL" deflnlLlon Lhe broad
caLch-all of oLher lawful auLhorlLy," as LhaL does noL lmply a neuLral, Lhlrd-parLy arblLer and could be
read Lo lnclude procedures LhaL occur wlLhouL conLemporaneous [udlclal overslghL.

no procedure should be counLed unless Lhe ad[udlcaLlve auLhorlLy has made a speclflc flndlng
LhaL Lhe lndlvldual's menLal condlLlon or lllness presenLs a rlsk of harm Lo Lhe lndlvldual or anoLher.
Congress' concern was wlLh Lhose whose menLal condlLlons posed a rlsk of vlolence or pervaslvely
llmlLed Lhelr ablllLy Lo make raLlonal declslons. 1he lnablllLy Lo conLracL or manage one's affalrs ls noL a
sufflclenL proxy and has led Lo an un[usLlfled loss of rlghLs.

no procedure should be counLed unless Lhe ad[udlcaLlon or commlLmenL ls based on marked,
subnormal lnLelllgence perslsLlng from chlldhood lnLo adulLhood or on a menLal lllness, menLal
condlLlon, or menLal dlsease. Congress enacLed a separaLe prohlblLlon relaLlng Lo subsLance abuse, so
subsLance abuse LreaLmenL or counsellng should noL be subsumed lnLo Lhe menLal healLh-relaLed
prohlblLlons. 1he same goes for LreaLmenL or counsellng of oLher lssues LhaL are noL aLLrlbuLable Lo
lnLellecLual dlsablllLles or menLal lllness.

years), legally consumlng or purchaslng alcohollc beverages (Lhose under 21 noL allowed Lo purchase, possess,
serve, dlspense, or consume beer, wlne or oLher alcohollc llquor, ldaho Code Ann. 23-949, llkewlse, purchase or
consumpLlon prohlblLed, nev. 8ev. SLaL. 202.020), marrylng (Ala. Code 30-1-4, -3, person under 16 years of
age ls lncapable of conLracLlng marrlage," 1ex. lam. Code Ann. 2.101-2.103, marrlage llcense cannoL be lssued
lf elLher parLy ls under 18), worklng (Wash. 8ev. Code. 26.28.060, persons under 14 generally prohlblLed from
employmenL), geLLlng a body plerclng (Cal. enal Code 632 prohlblLs performlng a body plerclng, oLher Lhan ear
plerclng, on someone under 18 years of age wlLhouL a parenL or guardlan's consenL), walklng Lhe sLreeLs
unhampered by dayLlme or nlghLLlme curfews laws (Chlcago, lll. Code 8-16-020, lmposlng curfew on Lhose 16
years of age and under), or uslng a Lannlng salon (Chlcago, lll. Code 8-16-024, person under 18 prohlblLed from
uslng a Lannlng faclllLy, even wlLh Lhe consenL of a parenL or guardlan).
27

u. 8ecommended ueflnlLlons
8ased Lhe above, n8A-lLA would suggesL Lhe followlng deflnlLlons Lo replace Lhose ln 31:

Ad[ud|cated as a menta| defect|ve.
(a) A deLermlnaLlon, order, or flndlng by a courL or oLher ad[udlcaLlve auLhorlLy LhaL:
(1) As a resulL of marked subnormal lnLelllgence perslsLlng from chlldhood lnLo adulLhood, a
person ls:
(l) A danger Lo self or oLhers,
(ll) ln a crlmlnal case lnvolvlng physlcal ln[ury Lo or Lhe LhreaLened use of a deadly
weapon agalnsL anoLher person:
(A) noL compeLenL Lo sLand Lrlal,
(8) noL gullLy by reason of lnsanlLy,
(C) noL crlmlnally responslble, or
(ll) Cravely and pervaslvely dlsabled and unable Lo funcLlon lndependenLly,
(2) llrsL occurs aL a hearlng of whlch Lhe person had acLual noLlce and aL whlch Lhe person
had a rlghL Lo be presenL, Lo be represenLed by counsel, Lo presenL evldence, and Lo conLesL Lhe
evldence agalnsL Lhe person, and
(3) ls sub[ecL ln Lhe [urlsdlcLlon ln whlch lL occurred Lo revlew or appeal and a peLlLlon for
rellef from flrearm dlsablllLles.
(b) 1he Lerm does noL lnclude:
(1) A deLermlnaLlon, order, or flndlng LhaL ls noL based on marked subnormal lnLelllgence
perslsLlng from chlldhood lnLo adulLhood, or
(2) Any person so ad[udlcaLed by a deparLmenL or agency of Lhe lederal CovernmenL, lf any
of Lhe condlLlons of secLlon 101(c)(1) of Lhe nlCS lmprovemenL AmendmenLs AcL of 2007 apply,
or any person who has recelved rellef from flrearm dlsablllLles under a program auLhorlzed by
secLlon 101(c)(2) or secLlon 103(a) of LhaL AcL or under 18 u.S.C. 923(c) or under any law of Lhe
[urlsdlcLlon ln whlch Lhe deLermlnaLlon, order, or flndlng occurred.
Comm|tted to a menta| |nst|tut|on.
(a) A formal, lnvolunLary commlLmenL of a person Lo a menLal lnsLlLuLlon by a courL or oLher
ad[udlcaLlve auLhorlLy LhaL:
28
(1) ls based on menLal lllness, menLal dlsease, menLal dlsorder, or menLal condlLlon,
(2) lncludes a flndlng LhaL Lhe person ls a danger Lo self or oLhers,
(3) llrsL occurs aL a hearlng of whlch Lhe person had acLual noLlce and aL whlch Lhe person
had a rlghL Lo be presenL, Lo be represenLed by counsel, Lo presenL evldence, and Lo conLesL Lhe
evldence agalnsL Lhe person, and
(4) ls sub[ecL ln Lhe [urlsdlcLlon ln whlch lL occurred Lo revlew or appeal and a peLlLlon for
rellef from flrearm dlsablllLles.
(b) 1he Lerm does noL lnclude:
(1) volunLary menLal healLh LreaLmenL or volunLary admlsslon Lo a menLal lnsLlLuLlon,
(2) 1reaLmenL or admlsslon Lo a menLal lnsLlLuLlon for reasons oLher Lhan menLal lllness,
menLal dlsease, menLal dlsorder, or menLal condlLlon,
(3) A person who ls ln or aL a menLal lnsLlLuLlon, wheLher on an lnpaLlenL or ouLpaLlenL
basls, for Lhe purpose of observaLlon or evaluaLlon, or
(4) Any person so commlLLed by a deparLmenL or agency of Lhe lederal CovernmenL, lf any
of Lhe condlLlons of secLlon 101(c)(1) of Lhe nlCS lmprovemenL AmendmenLs AcL of 2007 apply,
or any person who has recelved rellef from flrearm dlsablllLles under a program auLhorlzed by
secLlon 101(c)(2) or secLlon 103(a) of LhaL AcL or under 18 u.S.C. 923(c) or under any law of Lhe
[urlsdlcLlon ln whlch Lhe commlLmenL occurred.