re: #138 Dark_Falcon

I must respectfully disagree on your interpretation based on the following boldedpart of 11.f:

Committed to a Mental Institution: A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term includes commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution. Please also refer to Question 11.c. for the definition of a prohibited person.

I have often heard involuntary holds described as holds for observation, and I think that correct. In my mind it would be severely problematic if a single psychiatrist was simply able to get someone held and them that was counted as ‘committed’. One should not lose one’s right to own a firearm (and face a lengthy and expensive process to get one’s rights restored) based on one person’s say-so, even if that person is an expert. To do so strikes me as a violation not only of the 2nd Amendment but also of the Due Process provisions of the 5th and 14th Amendments as well.

You’re wrong. Observation is not involuntary commitment. It’s is often preliminary to an involuntary commitment.