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.