Dave Hardy has the language, and cuts to the relevant parts for us. The bill will be HR2640. Take a read. As best as I can tell from my reading of it, the key things we get out of this are:
- Clarification of the language of what “adjudicated mental defective” actually means.
- Ability to have mental health related disability removed through a state process
- The ability to appeal decisions of state bodies in regards to mental health related disability removal.
I was hoping for a little more, personally. But this addresses much of the concern we had about state mental health records being put into NICS. I still believe this bill is a net gain for us rather than a loss, so given the current language, I’m still inclined to not oppose passage of this bill.
UPDATE: You can see the bill here on GovTrack. Still no text yet, but we can see the cosponsors.  I am very sorry to say that the sponsor of this legislation is Carolyn McCarthy. I’m guessing the Democrats let her introduce the bill so she wouldn’t get snubbed by her own party. This is a disappointment. The Democrats would have pulled off more of a public relations coup by having Boucher introduce it.
The bill decidedly does not clarify the meaining of “adjudicated mentally defective.” It says that the term will have the “meaning given in regulations implementing section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, as in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.” You and I will probably be unable to find those regulations, and neither could the idiots who wrote this bill.
I think that refers to the regulations implemented by the ATF on how the term applies. Those regulations are certainly there, but regulations can change. My desire is to see it spelled out in statute rather than in the code.
Okay, so according to this interesting case,
http://www.abanet.org/disability/publications/lawreporter/caselaw.shtml
the ATF defines “adjudicated as a mental defective†as “a determination by a court that a person, as a result of a mental illness, condition or disease (1) is a danger to himself or others; or (2) lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.†Well, that’s not so bad.
Here’s the bad part. In that particular case, the court ruled that according to Iowa law, “committed to a mental institution†INCLUDES outpatient treatment, because “[u]nder Iowa law, a formal order of commitment is a prerequisite to outpatient treatment, outpatient treatment continues only while the patient is under such an order, and the treatment does not end absent a court order terminating the commitment. See Iowa Code §229.13.
Crap, bad link. I’ll see if I can find the original cite.
I don’t think the current regulation is necessarily bad, and I actually have little issue with the Iowa deal as long as it requires a formal commitment order. The problem with these being regulations, though, is that regulations could change on a whim. If an anti-gun president were to take power (Obama or Hillary, take your pick), they could order the ATF to make these requirements more stringent, so they could apply to a broader set of people.