Question: Family member diagnose mental illness. Is it legal for them to shoot a gun?

[mattsn0w]

I have a sibling that was diagnosed bipolar 12+ years ago. They never physically hurt anyone, but they were admitted to a mental health facility at the time, and released after a couple weeks of evaluation with medication which they still take.

From what I understand they are not allowed to purchase or own a gun. But what I want to know, is it legal for them to handle and shoot a gun?

i've known this person all my life and would not consider him a risk. He has pellet and bb guns, cross bows, knifes, bows and hunting arrows, etc... plenty of stuff to hurt himself or others with and never has. They have a family and children of their own. If I believed it would be a risk I would not even think about taking them to the range. Growing up together we had loads of fun plinking our BB guns at cans and such, and I know they would love to go target shooting with me at the range.

I know this is a touchy subject (mental health) but am looking for the legal facts. i've tried search here, google, and searching through the penal codes, but can't find anything about this in detail.

[furyous68]

I'm shooting from the hip here, but I believe if they were adjudicated as mentally ill, they cannot possess or handle. Kind of like a felon can not possess or handle.

Personally, I would not want to risk it. I completely understand your situation... but you could never predict if he would have a mental lapse right there at the range. It's probably 1 billion : 1 odds, but it would always be a worry at the back of my mind.

[furyous68]

Actually.. I found this:

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/...tally-ill.aspx

Cal. Welfare and Inst. Code §§ 8100 - 8108 basically says that they cannot possess, purchase, receive, attempt to purchase or receive, or have control or custody of any firearms if they meet listed criteria. I would think "control" would include shooting.

BUT, if your sibling hasn't been deemed by the courts to be a danger, and they are not/ or are no longer receiving in-patient treatment... it looks like it may be O.K.:

(person) Has been admitted to a facility and is receiving in-patient treatment for a mental illness and the attending mental health professional opines that the patient is a danger to self or others. This prohibition applies even if the person has consented to the treatment, although the prohibition ends as soon as the patient is discharged from the facility

[tcrpe]

Originally Posted by furyous68

Actually.. I found this:

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/...tally-ill.aspx

It basically says that they cannot possess, purchase, receive, attempt to purchase or receive, or have control or custody of any firearms if they meet listed criteria. I would think "control" would include shooting.

A crossbow is considered a firearm.


ETA, correct me if I'm wrong. Haha, I know you guys will. Any law school students?

[furyous68]

Right.. but if there has been no official court ruling on his siblings mental status, they are not currently receiving in-patient care, & their psychotherapist hasn't reported them as a danger to self or others... then it looks like they could actually purchase a firearm, let alone shoot one at a range.

But.. IADefinitelyNAL, so don't take my reasoning as anything law.

[mattsn0w]

Thank you all for the info! i'll talk to the sibling and find out what the details are.

Furyous68 - I had the thought about the chances of relapse as well. It's definitely something to consider. We are going to work on contacting the facility that admitted them. See if it is something that expires or if rights can be reinstated.

[Dano2467]

all I can think of is Chris Kyle

[bslaney]

I'm in the same boat with a friend of mine, trying to find out the legality of trying to take him to a range. He's under the impression he can't buy a firearm because he was diagnosed bipolar years ago. The only other thing I see is the federal code,

Federal Law

Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d), it is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.”

Can anyone explain this for me?

[Yankee Clipper]

Basically our laws are there to codify commonsense and the laws that we English speaking people believe made sense going back to the Magna Carta. But I think those ideals may be too convoluted in this case. Forget the laws for a minute and think simply of the 'reasonable' factor: if you didn't know the individual, and didn't know he was by bipolar, would you want him next to you with a gun in his hands? On top of that, if you bring him to the range and something bad happens, and you have that knowledge, you may be found culpable.

[Milsurp Collector]

Originally Posted by Dano2467

all I can think of is Chris Kyle

Nancy Lanza used to take her son Adam to the range too.

Why do some people feel the need to hand a mentally ill person a firearm?

[furyous68]

Just remember:

Diagnosed is NOT equal to being adjudicated as being mentally defective. Not yet, anyways.

That CA law I referenced states that the prohibition lifted immediately after being released from being treated at an in-patient facility (institutionalized). So if the family member/ friend doesn't fall under those (or the other 3 classifications listed in that link), it seems to me that it would be legal. That doesn't mean it's the wisest choice.

I was thinking of Chris Kyle as well. You just never know what will set someone off when chemical imbalances are a major factor.

[Decoligny]

Originally Posted by tcrpe

A crossbow is considered a firearm.


ETA, correct me if I'm wrong. Haha, I know you guys will. Any law school students?

Consider yourself corrected.

A crossbow may be considered a weapon, but it is by no legal definition a firearm.


CA Penal Code 16520

(a) As used in this part, "firearm" means any device,
designed to be used as a weapon, from which is expelled through a
barrel, a projectile by the force of any explosion or other form of
combustion.
(b) As used in the following provisions, "firearm" includes the
frame or receiver of the weapon
...
(c) As used in the following provisions, "firearm" also includes
any rocket, rocket propelled projectile launcher, or similar device
containing any explosive or incendiary material whether or not the
device is designed for emergency or distress signaling purposes
...
(e) As used in Sections 34005 and 34010, "firearm" does not
include a destructive device.
(f) As used in Sections 17280 and 24680, "firearm" has the same
meaning as in Section 922 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
(g) As used in Sections 29010 to 29150, inclusive, "firearm"
includes the unfinished frame or receiver of a weapon that can be
readily converted to the functional condition of a finished frame or
receiver.


USC 921
(a) As used in this chapter—
...
(3) The term "firearm" means
(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to
or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an
explosive;
(B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon;
(C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or
(D) any destructive device.
Such term does not include an antique firearm.

...

(16) The term "antique firearm" means—
(A) any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock,
percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or
before 1898; or
(B) any replica of any firearm described in subparagraph (A) if such
replica—
(i) is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional
centerfire fixed ammunition, or
(ii) uses rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition which is
no longer manufactured in the United States and which is not readily
available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade; or
(C) any muzzle loading rifle, muzzle loading shotgun, or muzzle
loading pistol, which is designed to use black powder, or a black
powder substitute, and which cannot use fixed ammunition. For purposes
of this subparagraph, the term "antique firearm" shall not include any
weapon which incorporates a firearm frame or receiver, any firearm
which is converted into a muzzle loading weapon, or any muzzle loading
weapon which can be readily converted to fire fixed ammunition by
replacing the barrel, bolt, breechblock, or any combination thereof.

[tcrpe]

Good, so a crossbow is considered a firearm for hunting regulation purposes only (unless one is disabled), but not a firearm for any and all other purposes.

Thanks, good to know.

[greg36f]

I cannot remember the form number, but there is a DOJ form to check your status right? A check to see if you are allowed to buy without actually trying to buy.

Have him do one of those.

That way it is not your call to make.

[mattsn0w]

Originally Posted by Dano2467

all I can think of is Chris Kyle

I can't blame you. Also had the thought cross my mind too.


I'm pretty certain at this point the answer for my sibling is "No". Better to have asked and learned, than to have another tragedy.

[mattsn0w]

Originally Posted by Milsurp Collector

Nancy Lanza used to take her son Adam to the range too.

Why do some people feel the need to hand a mentally ill person a firearm?

touche. I wondered the same thing. Part of this process was for me to find out the logistics of what happened when all this went down. I wasn't there for any if the crazy stuff he said to my mom, but was obviously enough to have him taken in on a 5150. Sometimes the love you have for your family creates bias and over-trust.

Originally Posted by greg36f

I cannot remember the form number, but there is a DOJ form to check your status right? A check to see if you are allowed to buy without actually trying to buy.

Have him do one of those.

That way it is not your call to make.

I can't remember it either! I told him to do this as well. The CA DOJ is very helpful if you call to ask questions.
EDIT: http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pd...s/pfecapp.pdf?

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by tcrpe

Good, so a crossbow is considered a firearm for hunting regulation purposes only (unless one is disabled), but not a firearm for any and all other purposes.

Thanks, good to know.

No! It's just not considered archery equipment for an archery only season.

[Kestryll]

Post something else.

Seriously.

[AVS]

Originally Posted by furyous68

Personally, I would not want to risk it. I completely understand your situation... but you could never predict if he would have a mental lapse right there at the range.

Hi, mental health person here. I'm sorry, but listening to you guys talk about mental health is like listening to the anti's talk about guns. The movies portray mental health as accurately as they portray gun use, so yeah... Toss that knowledge in the trash.

Bipolar disorder has nothing to do with sudden mental lapses. Put bluntly, you might as well be complaining about that shoulder thing that goes up.

As for those saying, "Why would you give a gun to someone who's mentally ill?" Well, the lifetime prevalence for mental illness is 50% in the United States, and since this board is a slice of that population, figure half of us reading this thread right now are going to suffer from mental illness at some point in their life.

To the OP, like someone else said, diagnosis does not equal endangerment. A link was already posted listing the criteria. Does your relative meet any of that criteria? Is he currently in a depressed or manic/hypomanic episode? Use your best judgment. There's a difference between if you can do something and if you should. You're the one who's responsible, feel free to talk with a lawyer, and best to err on the side of caution for any situation (mental health or not), when firearms are involved.

To everyone else, the stigma towards the mentally ill is one of the elements at the heart of why some jackasses are trying to take our guns away. We should do our best to not be a part of that problem.

[67goat]

Originally Posted by furyous68

Just remember:

Diagnosed is NOT equal to being adjudicated as being mentally defective. Not yet, anyways.

That CA law I referenced states that the prohibition lifted immediately after being released from being treated at an in-patient facility (institutionalized).

The way I read that section, the prohibition is lifted if the person leaving the facility was there of their own free will, not if they were committed.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by AVS

Hi, mental health person here. I'm sorry, but listening to you guys talk about mental health is like listening to the anti's talk about guns. The movies portray mental health as accurately as they portray gun use, so yeah... Toss that knowledge in the trash.

Bipolar disorder has nothing to do with sudden mental lapses. Put bluntly, you might as well be complaining about that shoulder thing that goes up.

As for those saying, "Why would you give a gun to someone who's mentally ill?" Well, the lifetime prevalence for mental illness is 50% in the United States, and since this board is a slice of that population, figure half of us reading this thread right now are going to suffer from mental illness at some point in their life.

To the OP, like someone else said, diagnosis does not equal endangerment. A link was already posted listing the criteria. Does your relative meet any of that criteria? Is he currently in a depressed or manic/hypomanic episode? Use your best judgment. There's a difference between if you can do something and if you should. You're the one who's responsible, feel free to talk with a lawyer, and best to err on the side of caution for any situation (mental health or not), when firearms are involved.

To everyone else, the stigma towards the mentally ill is one of the elements at the heart of why some jackasses are trying to take our guns away. We should do our best to not be a part of that problem.

Does this mean (in regards to firearm ownership). When it comes to mental health, that prohibition must be dissected by doctors as to who can and can't or shouldn't have guns? Or, do we determine this only by recent actions of the mentally ill? This will be a tough nut to crack since I believe almost, Everyone can suffer from this disease at different times of their lives.

[mattsn0w]

Originally Posted by AVS

Hi, mental health person here. I'm sorry, but listening to you guys talk about mental health is like listening to the anti's talk about guns. The movies portray mental health as accurately as they portray gun use, so yeah... Toss that knowledge in the trash.

Bipolar disorder has nothing to do with sudden mental lapses. Put bluntly, you might as well be complaining about that shoulder thing that goes up.

As for those saying, "Why would you give a gun to someone who's mentally ill?" Well, the lifetime prevalence for mental illness is 50% in the United States, and since this board is a slice of that population, figure half of us reading this thread right now are going to suffer from mental illness at some point in their life.

To the OP, like someone else said, diagnosis does not equal endangerment. A link was already posted listing the criteria. Does your relative meet any of that criteria? Is he currently in a depressed or manic/hypomanic episode? Use your best judgment. There's a difference between if you can do something and if you should. You're the one who's responsible, feel free to talk with a lawyer, and best to err on the side of caution for any situation (mental health or not), when firearms are involved.

To everyone else, the stigma towards the mentally ill is one of the elements at the heart of why some jackasses are trying to take our guns away. We should do our best to not be a part of that problem.

Thank you so much fo responding! In texting with said family member, they recall going to court and being told by the DA that there are both state and federal laws that would prevent him from owning a firearm. They asked the DA if he can ever have rights reinstated. The DA said "if you have enough money....".

As for judgement of this person, and would I want to go to the range with them. Absolutely. I trust this person with my life. As others have already pointed out, they are reminded of Chris Kyle when I ask this question. not quite the same situation, but I understand the POV.

Originally Posted by Kestryll

Post something else.

Seriously.

are you replying to me, or another member?

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by mattsn0w

are you replying to me, or another member?

absolutely not. He was referring to some posts he deleted.

[TheDarkness]

If the person is on meds and is stable, I would not worry about it, other than what the law says.

The thing to be careful of with bipolar is the risk of suicide during the depressed phase. Bipolar, aka "manic-depressive," is where a person cycles from one extreme to the other. Manic, essentially being high and the opposite, being very depressed, possibly suicidal.

While I'm not going to tell you No, I would exercise caution and maintain some sort of control over the firearms.

In Chris Kyle's situation, the guy was diagnosed as having PTSD, which is totally different than Bipolar. Mental disorders have their own characteristics, which can overlap, but as I already said, bipolar and PTSD are totally different

[tcrpe]

Originally Posted by taperxz

No! It's just not considered archery equipment for an archery only season.

OK, OT, but I did look it up. The exact words from DFG

A crossbow is not archery equipment and cannot be used during the archery deer season.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by tcrpe

Good, so a crossbow is considered a firearm for hunting regulation purposes only (unless one is disabled), but not a firearm for any and all other purposes.

Thanks, good to know.

Originally Posted by tcrpe

OK, OT, but I did look it up. The exact words from DFG

You claimed a crossbow was a firearm because the F&G regs told you so.

You are still wrong. F&G is basically the referee of the sport take of game. The commission makes up the rules on how the game can be played. In this instance they don't let you use a crossbow for archery season. (its to easy) It certainly has no basis to be considered a firearm though because of what a fish and game commission says.

Not quite understanding why you want to spin it the way you do? A crossbow simply is not a firearm and yet you want to insist it is.

AND yes! you are way off topic.

[sakosf]

Here is a list of mental conditions/disorders in the current DSM IV. The upcoming DSM V supposedly has even more. How many of us can go through life, without ever at one time or another, meeting the criteria of one of those supposed mental conditions? I would not be surprised if some psych practitioners would like to ad liking guns to the list of mental disorders.

http://www.psyweb.com/DSM_IV/jsp/dsmab.jsp

[furyous68]

Originally Posted by 67goat

The way I read that section, the prohibition is lifted if the person leaving the facility was there of their own free will, not if they were committed.

Yeah, it's kind of written funny. I took it as the prohibition itself was enforced even if the person voluntarily submitted to treatment, but that the lifting of the prohibition after discharge from treatment was across the board. I suppose that if the treatment was not voluntary, than a 5150 was probably ordered & then the restrictions are more difficult to get lifted.

[furyous68]

Originally Posted by AVS

Hi, mental health person here. I'm sorry, but listening to you guys talk about mental health is like listening to the anti's talk about guns. The movies portray mental health as accurately as they portray gun use, so yeah... Toss that knowledge in the trash.

Bipolar disorder has nothing to do with sudden mental lapses. Put bluntly, you might as well be complaining about that shoulder thing that goes up.

As for those saying, "Why would you give a gun to someone who's mentally ill?" Well, the lifetime prevalence for mental illness is 50% in the United States, and since this board is a slice of that population, figure half of us reading this thread right now are going to suffer from mental illness at some point in their life.

To the OP, like someone else said, diagnosis does not equal endangerment. A link was already posted listing the criteria. Does your relative meet any of that criteria? Is he currently in a depressed or manic/hypomanic episode? Use your best judgment. There's a difference between if you can do something and if you should. You're the one who's responsible, feel free to talk with a lawyer, and best to err on the side of caution for any situation (mental health or not), when firearms are involved.

To everyone else, the stigma towards the mentally ill is one of the elements at the heart of why some jackasses are trying to take our guns away. We should do our best to not be a part of that problem.

Since you quoted my post, I'll respond. I didn't say the lapse would be sudden. As was mentioned, bi-polar has phases. If the person happens to be in a low phase (and might possibly have suicidal thoughts), or maybe they went off their meds (which happens a lot)... then there could be problems.

My best friend was diagnosed w/ Bi-polar disorder. Before his diagnosis, his demeanor was a like a rocket. When he was up, man.. there was no bringing him down. Pulling all-nighters & the world was great & wonderful. But when he was coming down, he crashed hard. Wouldn't see him for days. Would go check on him and could hardly get him to come to the door. Now that he's being treated, he's on a much more even keel. Not knowing then what I know now, I might have tried to take him shooting to get him out of the house. Could have been a dangerous situation, at least for him. He never really talks to me about what he went through- his thoughts & all, and I don't press it because I don't want to make him dwell on it... but I can't imagine it was anything good. He did go off his meds once or twice over the last 12 or so years, & his family was able to get him into treatment & back on track. They get to feeling good & start convincing themselves that they're back to normal & don't need their medication. It happens, and it's something to think about.

I'm not for the blanket taking of the rights of anyone, and I don't subscribe to Hollywood's portrayal of anything. I believe it should be on a case-by-case basis.

[tcrpe]

Originally Posted by taperxz

You claimed a crossbow was a firearm because the F&G regs told you so.

You are still wrong. F&G is basically the referee of the sport take of game. The commission makes up the rules on how the game can be played. In this instance they don't let you use a crossbow for archery season. (its to easy) It certainly has no basis to be considered a firearm though because of what a fish and game commission says.

Not quite understanding why you want to spin it the way you do? A crossbow simply is not a firearm and yet you want to insist it is.

AND yes! you are way off topic.

And you questioned my reading ability?

Take your $25 worth.

I won't stand between a zealot and his woodie. Carry on.

[Kestryll]

Originally Posted by Kestryll

Post something else.

Seriously.

Originally Posted by tcrpe

And you questioned my reading ability?

Take your $25 worth.

I won't stand between a zealot and his woodie. Carry on.

Some people just never learn....

[Neil McCauley]

I would see if theres any way they can get some type of medical declaration that he would not be a threat to himself or others any longer before I'd hand any kind of weapon over to him. At least that way you have some kind of legal protection.

[sakosf]

Originally Posted by Neil McCauley

I would see if theres any way they can get some type of medical declaration that he would not be a threat to himself or others any longer before I'd hand any kind of weapon over to him. At least that way you have some kind of legal protection.

Has it even been established this person was a danger to themselve or others in the past ?

[frankrizzo]

A lot of misinformation and uncertainty in this thread.

1) If this person was held under W&I 5150, he is subject to a 5-year California firearms prohibition. This is a 3-day involuntary hold. He may petition the court to restore the right to possess firearms once during the 5-year period.

2) If this person was further held under W&I 5250, he is subject to a 5-year California firearms prohibition and a lifetime Federal firearms prohibition. This is a further 14-day hold as extension of the 5150 3-day hold. While he may petition the court to lift the California firearms prohibition during the 5-year period, even if the California court restores the right to possess firearms, the Federal prohibition remains in effect. Currently, there is no way to remove the Federal prohibition.

Note that these prohibitions cover purchase, ownership, and possession. A person so prohibited cannot at any time possess or control firearms or ammunition. They absolutely cannot legally participate at a shooting range.

There are other things that can trigger a firearms prohibition, but the two above are the most common and sounds as if they may apply to his situation. Note also that a voluntary admission to a mental health facility does not trigger the 5-year or lifetime prohibitions on its own. If at any time that voluntary admission was converted to an involuntary hold, the prohibitions would then come into effect. There are a few caveats with that too, but again probably don't apply in this case.

[furyous68]

Originally Posted by mattsn0w

I wasn't there for any if the crazy stuff he said to my mom, but was obviously enough to have him taken in on a 5150.

In texting with said family member, they recall going to court and being told by the DA that there are both state and federal laws that would prevent him from owning a firearm. They asked the DA if he can ever have rights reinstated. The DA said "if you have enough money...."

Ah ha! This wasn't in the OP. If he was held under a 5150, and he did not pursue reinstatement of his 2nd amendment rights, then he is most likely still prohibited. I don't know how expensive it actually is, the DA may have just been trying to scare him into not pursuing it. You may want to have him contact one of the lawyers on here to see what his options are.

[JDay]

Originally Posted by mattsn0w

Thank you all for the info! i'll talk to the sibling and find out what the details are.

If there was a 5150 your sibling has lost firearms rights in California for life.

EDIT: Correction, looks like that's a 5 year prohibition.

[JDay]

Originally Posted by greg36f

I cannot remember the form number, but there is a DOJ form to check your status right? A check to see if you are allowed to buy without actually trying to buy.

Have him do one of those.

That way it is not your call to make.

Good idea, it's the PFEC.

http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pd...ms/pfecapp.pdf

[sakosf]

Quote:
In texting with said family member, they recall going to court and being told by the DA that there are both state and federal laws that would prevent him from owning a firearm. They asked the DA if he can ever have rights reinstated. The DA said "if you have enough money...."

I believe only state law applies to a 5150 hold. If your family member is also barred by Federal Law, then it is likely the involuntary hospitalization went beyond the 72hr 5150 hold and if that is the case, then unfortunately your family member is barred for life with little or no legal recourse at this time

[TheDarkness]

As a rule of thumb....violent people have mental issues, but not everyone that has mental issues are violent.

[AVS]

Originally Posted by furyous68

Since you quoted my post, I'll respond. I didn't say the lapse would be sudden. As was mentioned, bi-polar has phases. If the person happens to be in a low phase (and might possibly have suicidal thoughts), or maybe they went off their meds (which happens a lot)... then there could be problems.

My best friend was diagnosed w/ Bi-polar disorder. Before his diagnosis, his demeanor was a like a rocket. When he was up, man.. there was no bringing him down. Pulling all-nighters & the world was great & wonderful. But when he was coming down, he crashed hard. Wouldn't see him for days. Would go check on him and could hardly get him to come to the door. Now that he's being treated, he's on a much more even keel. Not knowing then what I know now, I might have tried to take him shooting to get him out of the house. Could have been a dangerous situation, at least for him. He never really talks to me about what he went through- his thoughts & all, and I don't press it because I don't want to make him dwell on it... but I can't imagine it was anything good. He did go off his meds once or twice over the last 12 or so years, & his family was able to get him into treatment & back on track. They get to feeling good & start convincing themselves that they're back to normal & don't need their medication. It happens, and it's something to think about.

I'm not for the blanket taking of the rights of anyone, and I don't subscribe to Hollywood's portrayal of anything. I believe it should be on a case-by-case basis.

Okay, yeah, when you describe it that way, I agree with you. What raised my eyebrow was when you mentioned them having a mental lapse, which to me makes it sound like their episodes go from 0 to 60 in a matter of seconds, "Geez officer, he was justing standing here, perfectly normal and fine, then a second later he was shooting at the sky screaming that the men from Mercury had found him."

You're definitely right. You don't want to give a firearm to someone who has bipolar disorder and is in either a manic or depressed episode. Fortunately, you can see these coming, and watch them as they rise or fall.

Those with bipolar disorder, especially when medicated, can go for years between episodes. Four or more episodes a year is clinically considered, "Rapid Cycling", so that should give those reading a taste of what this is like. It's not like, "today I was up, yesterday I was down, the day before that I was up, and before that day I was down again!" The closed you can get to that is when someone experiences a "Mixed Episode" where they pretty much have a manic and depressed episode at the same time.

As for whether or not to let them use a firearm between episodes? I'm not going to answer that either way.