In what one attorney calls a "monumental decision," a US District Court has found that short mental health treatment does not end the rights of gun owners.
An attorney has presented his case to persuade Federal District Court Judge Kim Gibson of the Western District of Pennsylvania to rule that an involuntary commitment under Section 302 of Pennsylvania's Mental Health and Procedures Act ("MHPA") is insufficient to trigger a federal firearms and ammunition disability under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4).
I'll add before we get into this that a long mental health treatment doesn't end them either, as the Fifth Amendment to our Constitution is clear:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
For those that don't know, rights are liberties. Founding father Noah Webster defined "right" as "authority" or "liberty."
Mental health is an issue for the family jurisdiction, not the state.
However, in the recent case of Alton C. Franklin vs. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General of the United States; THOMAS E. BRANDON, Acting Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; CHRISTOPHER A. WRAY, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, it seems that the court agrees, at least in the short term.
Understand from the start that the terms "short" and "long" are not defined and that they are ambiguous, which, in my opinion, deem them to be unenforceable and unlawful, merely the opinions of men.