This is what can happen with the 'involuntary commitment' part of the new law

[Pilgrim]

http://blog.pennlive.com/patriotnews...d_at_hacc.html

Man with guns arrested at HACC
Posted by Tom Bowman/The Patriot-News June 20, 2007 12:57PM

A man armed with a 9mm pistol who police said talked about Virginia Tech was arrested yesterday inside Cooper Student Center at Harrisburg Area Community College.

The man approached a student and said he had guns in his car, Harrisburg Police Chief Charles Kellar said.

"It would be worse than Virginia Tech if someone broke into my car. I have guns in the car," said First Assistant District Attorney Fran Chardo quoting the man.

John Sakkas of Lemoyne says that he heard about a man with a gun at Cooper Student Center on the HACC campus during his 8:00 a.m. speech class today.


Patriot-News photo, Sean Simmers
The student told an armed HACC security guard that the man had a pistol, and the guards called Harrisburg police then watched him until police arrived, said HACC spokeswoman Tracy Mendoza.

City police searched the man, found the 9mm loaded handgun in his backpack, then took him to the police station, Mendoza said.

Kellar said the man had a concealed weapons permit and was legally allowed to carry a pistol. Police searched his car and found a second pistol there and another firearm in his home.

Police talked with Chardo about charging the man. Chardo said what the man said would not qualify as a terroristic threat because there has to be an intent to terrorize another person.

"Because of the statement I was greatly concerned about this fellow," Chardo said. "I contacted the sheriff and had his license to carry a firearm revoked. And I asked police to commit him under Section 302 of the mental health procedures act and that was done. He is now ineligible to possess firearms because he was committed involuntarily."

Chardo said the law says a person cannot possess a firearm if they have been adjudicated incompetent or involuntarily committed for inpatient mental health care.

A source close to the police said the man lives in the 3700 block of Green Street, Susquehanna Twp. The Patriot-News is withholding the man's name because he has not been charged with any offense.

Neither HACC nor Harrisburg police released any information on the incident yesterday.

After the man was arrested, chief HACC spokesman Pat Early sent out an e-mail to the college staff explaining the incident. Early said he did not tell the students or the public about the incident.

"It was something that was handled quickly, quietly. There wasn't anything to tell," Early said. "Our (security) officers approached the man when the Harrisburg police arrived. They determined indeed he was carrying a weapon. He was taken into custody and removed from the campus."

 

[pdm]

And is there any way to get an involuntary commitment expunged?

 

[pipmaster1971]

The man approached a student and said he had guns in his car, Harrisburg Police Chief Charles Kellar said.

"It would be worse than Virginia Tech if someone broke into my car. I have guns in the car," said First Assistant District Attorney Fran Chardo quoting the man.

That's sounds a little fishy there. 99% of people don't go upto random strangers and make such comments. I could be wrong, and maybe the guy is a real loon; but I bet they got into a regular conversation, the issue of guns came up and this discussion was entered into. If so, then this sucks -- I thought there was a law against that sort of shite.

WRT concealed carry...What does the law typically say about brandishing, or advertising the fact you are concealed?

 

[Len-2A Training]

And is there any way to get an involuntary commitment expunged?

NO! He's done for LIFE, even if it was a casual conversation and he meant nothing by it.

Indeed mentioning anything about guns in public is likely to get this sort of response these days. See, it is not just in MA that the first reaction is revoke the permit and commit the person involuntarily!

Be forewarned!!

 

[pdm]

Ugh.

 

[clinotus]

This sounds fishy. Why did they search his home? I'm thinking that if the entrie event is based on hearsay a good lawyer (and a lot of money) could see his permit restored. But it seems like they were gunning for him or anyone.

 

[kevin9]

You know, some people really ARE crazy. Don't know if that's the case here, but could be.

 

[highlander]

so now LEO's are shrinks and can decide who's crazy and who's not.
That thought alone scares the hell out of me.

 

[kevin9]

so now LEO's are shrinks and can decide who's crazy and who's not.
That thought alone scares the hell out of me.

Not quite, assuming this FAQ, Some Frequently Asked Questions About the Pennsylvania Mental Health Procedures Act of 1976, is correct:

Does filing a petition result in an individual's hospitalization?

The petition may lead to a psychiatric examination if the Delegate feels that one is needed. Hospitalization is decided by the examining psychiatrist based on the requirements of the Act, the information in the petition, and an examination of the individual. Many who receive an examination are helped by counseling or other services without hospitalization.

Can the police or a physician get a psychiatric examination for a mentally ill individual?
Under Section 302(b) police officers or physicians can take an at risk individual to a psychiatric facility without a warrant. This must be based upon personal observation that an individual's behavior indicates that he or she could be severely mentally disabled and pose a clear and present danger to herself/himself. Admission depends a psychiatrist's examination.

Again, not saying this is a justified case here, or that it cannot be subject to abuse, but as I read it at least 1 doctor must sign off.

 

[Gabe]

What am I missing? He had a CCW permit, and he was carrying concealed weapons...so revoke the permit and commit him to a mental ward? WTF?

 

[Scrivener]

What am I missing?

The "uttering threats" part; i.e., the babble about Virginia Tech and the guns in his car.

RTFD........

 

[Gabe]

"I have guns in the car. If anyone broke into my car it would be worse than VT." How is this a threat? Strained. Plus, I don't appreciate your language and your rolling eyes.

 

[depicts]

I think Gabe needs a time out

 

[Admin]

Easy Gabe. He stated facts...

 

[kevin9]

"I have guns in the car. If anyone broke into my car it would be worse than VT." How is this a threat? Strained. Plus, I don't appreciate your language and your rolling eyes.

 

[Gabe]

Moderator, your reactionary editing of my post gutted my sarcasm, blunting my point. Please be more tolerant.

 

[KMaurer]

Moderator, your reactionary editing of my post gutted my sarcasm, blunting my point. Please be more tolerant.

You''re right. Okay, everybody, here's the entire original post with only the most minor of edits. Notice how much more obvious the sarcasm is now and how sharper than a weasel's tooth the point.

"I have guns in the car. If anyone broke into my car it would be worse than VT." How is this a threat? Strained. Plus, I don't appreciate your language and your rolling eyes #$%!*@$

Ken

 

[Scrivener]

Quote:
"I have guns in the car. If anyone broke into my car it would be worse than VT." How is this a threat? Strained. Plus, I don't appreciate your language and your rolling eyes #$%!*@$

You also obviously don't appreciate the context. Let's walk you through it:

1. Possession of a firearm on campus grounds is prohibited at virtually all colleges and illegal at many.

2. Given #1, what remotely intelligent purpose is served by telling the student, "I have guns in my car?"

3. Most telling, from the law enforcement/insanity analysis, what possible reason could a rational person have for referring to the Virginia Tech massacre in that already inane encounter?

Still want to get all defensive over the rolling eyes?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

What am I missing? He had a CCW permit, and he was carrying concealed weapons...so revoke the permit and commit him to a mental ward? WTF?

It appears that the "committment" was used as a legal maneuver to make him a lifetime prohibited person (for which there is no legal remedy that can reverse this status, even a finding of "no mental illness")

Sure, it takes an MD to approve the committment - but even the sanest MD will be reluctant to base his determination that someone should not be evaluated for *possible* illness based on a short interview. Easier to commit, collect your fee, and not worry about the damage to your careet if it's the 1 person in a million who really is dangerous.

 

[drgrant]

I agree the guy was an idiot but it still is important to try to figure out the
means by which he was railroaded....... I don't think it could be
-that- easy. It probably also doesn't help that mr nutcase probably
did not have legal counsel available to him at the time, either.

-Mike

 

[Rob Boudrie]

It's sort of like those people who like to make a point with the TSA by using a carry license rather than driver's license when asked to show that their papers are in order - completely legal, accomplishes nothing extra other than letting people without a "need to know" understand your status as a gun owner; and invites unwarranted scrutiny. It seems to make some people feel good though.

 

[Gabe]

You also obviously don't appreciate the context. Let's walk you through it:

1. Possession of a firearm on campus grounds is prohibited at virtually all colleges and illegal at many.

2. Given #1, what remotely intelligent purpose is served by telling the student, "I have guns in my car?"

3. Most telling, from the law enforcement/insanity analysis, what possible reason could a rational person have for referring to the Virginia Tech massacre in that already inane encounter?

Still want to get all defensive over the rolling eyes?

From the OP:

The Patriot-News is withholding the man's name because he has not been charged with any offense.

This man was not charged with any crime?

Possession on campus grounds may have been prohibited but was evidently legal. So this is not the answer to my question.

Lack of "intelligent purpose" is not reason to conclude mental defect, your 2nd point is therefore irrelevant and is not the answer either.

There are many legal and sane reasons for referring to the crime in question. For instance, poor taste. Strike three.

So again I ask, why does this result in permit revocation and institutional commitment? WTF?

 

[kevin9]

It probably also doesn't help that mr nutcase probably
did not have legal counsel available to him at the time, either.

-Mike

I do wish people would do at least a little research first. From the same FAQ posted before:

What is a mental health hearing?

It is a civil (non-criminal) proceeding to determine if additional treatment is needed. Hearings are non-adversarial and usually brief. Participants are guided by an attorney on their roles.

What happens at a mental health hearing?

Petitioners or others testify about the behavior that they have observed. The patient may testify and call witnesses. An attorney known as the County Mental Health Solicitor represents the treatment facility. The psychiatrist reports on the individual's mental illness. The Mental Heath Review Officer decides if continuing treatment is necessary.

Can patients have legal representation at mental health hearings?

The Public Defender's Office provides representation at no cost to patients at mental health hearings. Private attorneys may also provide representation at the patient's expense.

May the patient waive the right to a hearing?

Yes, under the Act the patient has the right to agree to or to stipulate to an extension of their treatment, in which case a hearing is not necessary. Stipulation means that the patient and her/his attorney agree with the facility that a given period of ongoing treatment is acceptable.

Still not saying the guy might not have been railroaded for saying something stupid, but ...

 

[drgrant]

I do wish people would do at least a little research first. From the same FAQ posted before:

I misstated that.... maybe I should have said "competent" legal
counsel.... I imagine if you don't have a lawyer,they provide you with one,
which probably amounts to a public defender on his 900th cup of coffee or
something.

Still not saying the guy might not have been railroaded for saying something stupid, but ...

Given what he said to the guy at the school, the whole thing may be
"self inflicted" especially if he waived his rights without understanding the
consequences. (dumb begets dumber? lol)

-Mike

 

[Moderator]

I imagine if you don't have a lawyer,they provide you with one,
which probably amounts to a public defender on his 900th cup of coffee or
something.
-Mike

I reply with a quote from Chris Rock in Lethal Weapon 4

You have the right to remain silent... so shut the f*** up! You have the right to an attorney... if you can't afford one, we'll get you the cheapest dumbest lawyer on the earth. And if you get Johnny Cochrane, I'll kill you!

 

[FunYun]

I'm pretty sure that you are not considered "involuntarily committed' till you have been ordered committed by a judge at the recommendation of a psychologist after a hearing. Saying he is no longer allowed to because a metal health review has been ordered is false.

 

[Major Blood]

Cardinal Rules for the Gunowner:

1. Don't pull if you don't intend to shoot

2. Don't shoot if you don't intend to kill

3. Don't talk about shootings on college campuses to a security guard while on a college campus.

4. Don't EVER talk about your guns in public with people of unknown slant, you f#*cking retard!!!

Honestly, all legal mumbo jumbo aside, this idiot deserves to lose his license. How frickin' dumb do you have to be? Sheesh....jerks like this make us all look bad, we shouldn't be supporting the mental midgets amongst us.

 

[Gabe]

These are all great practical rules for the gunowner to live by. But why should we live like this? The government in this story acted prejudicially. This is horribly abusive. Cases like this make me wish the ACLU would support gun rights, because they would be all over this like flies on sh--. Instead, we sit here and judge the guy because he didn't know "the rules," one of which is, "Don't mention legal guns - we don't want any of the sheeple to poop their pants." The ACLU knows how to defend the Constitution. The NRA should pay attention.

 

[Major Blood]

I understand your frustration, but the last time I checked there was no Constitutional right to/protection for being a dumb-ass.

Why should we live by those rules?

1. They are in large part common sense.

2. They do not limit our enjoyment of our guns or impede on our rights in any way, shape or form whatsoever. Conversely, they serve to protect our continued right to enjoy our sport/hobby/activity WITHOUT these kinds of govt. incursions.

3. They are in large part common sense.

Every little battle isn't a war against the Constitution. Just because somebody may be a gun-owner doesn't mean they SHOULD be and doesn't mean we should blindly and automatically take their side whenever an issue like this rears it's ugly head. To the contrary, these are the types of dumb ass gun owners that do dumb ass things like this that make it harder for all of us. We should be glad he can no longer be counted amongst our ranks.