a question about (psych) hospitalization and ccw

[joshruss]

EDIT: Wow I really can't post a URL here until I make 10 posts on the site. Well I'm not going to spam to get 10 posts. lets see if this works. You type michigan dot gov then /msp/1,1607,7-123-1591_3503_4654-10926--,00.html

There are both the state and federal requirements.

Now if one has been to the hospital but not under court order to do so, this seems to pass the Michigan test. However it seems that even being in such a hospital disqualifies a person by the federal law unless "committed" implies by a court..

I'd rather not get into the details. I did that on another forum and most of my responses were helpful and some not so much... some were just rude. You can private message me about the situation if you like.

So I know that by law, federal laws take priority over state laws, however sometimes states can get away with just enforcing their own laws (IE: Marijuana). So does anyone know the way it works with CCW laws in michigan?

[malignity]

Hopefully this thread will help clarify.

http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?t=93843

[joshruss]

Thank you, I read that entire thread. Now I can't force anyone to take interrest in this thread, but I do think it is unique. I am asking whether going to the hospital against my will counts as involuntary commitment.

From what I've read legally, when they talk about involuntary commitment they seem to talk about the court aspect. You have to either agree to stay there voluntarily or go to court (within a few days). However ANYONE AT ANY TIME can be admitted to a hospital against their will for a short time by their family etc.

I'm very concerned because in my case I ended up there due to a medication that caused me to halucinate. I was at college (doing very well at the time) even had an on campus job. I was on a relatively high dose of zoloft for depression. Well my depression is usually much worse when I live at home with my folx because it's bad at home. When I go off to college it gets much better and I've even been told by doctors that I might not need medication once I'm out on my own. Having said that, antidepressants can, when taken by a person who has not been depressed for a while cause hypomania which is a symptom of bipolar.

I was very excitable and have some other noticeable changes to my mood such as not needing as much sleep (but nothing anywhere close to meriting hospitalization). So I go to the doctor tell him my concerns and get a script for seroquil. Well the seroquil caused me to halucinate which is an uncommon but well reported side effect. I remember very little of what happened but I ended up in the hospital. Since then I have had no problems and I will never be taking seroquil again.

I am not on antidepressants anymore either. I really don't think that an unfortunate reaction to medication should bar me from owning a firearm. That could happen to anyone.

[joshruss]

I mean there is a risk when you allow anyone to have a firearm. There are alot of undiagnosed all out nutjobs out there. There are alot of people with uncontrollable tempers and an out of wack sense of morals. Some people think its ok to shoot at a vehicle due to road rage. I'm not necessarily even going to get a ccw or even a pistol. But that is what the 2nd amendment is for, to protect our right to bear arms.

Now when I read the law it seems ambiguous what "involuntarily committed" means. However on the form you have to fill out (michigan. gov/documents/ri-012_7736_7.pdf) it asks if you have been under order (Have you ever been subject to an order of involuntary commitment in an inpatient or outpatient setting due to a mental illness?). So that implies you have been to court which I have not. So I can honestly answer no to that question. However when they do a check on me they may see that I have been to the hospital and think I'm trying to lie so I'll have to explain exactly why I answered no and defend myself. Definitely not worth the money of getting a lawyer at this point though because I don't really "need" a gun..

[malignity]

If you have been petitioned and clinically certed, which it sounds like what may have happened in your case, you have had an involuntary commitment. Whether you went in front of a court, or were discharged before your court date (which does happen a good portion of the time) is likely a moot point, because regardless, the commitment was still there. I'm sorry to be the bearer or bad news, and though I am not a lawyer, I am almost 100% positive this will be the case for you, only because I work in the profession myself and am experienced in how the process works. I would suggest talking with a lawyer though, as there may be some legalities I am not aware of. I am aware of the hospital aspect of involuntary commitments, which is only a piece of the whole picture. The legal aspect may be different.

[DocCasualty]

However ANYONE AT ANY TIME can be admitted to a hospital against their will for a short time by their family etc.


That's not quite correct. As Malignity noted above, an individual must be petitioned and certified by a licensed practitioner to be involuntarily admitted to a psychiatric hospital. When these requirements are met, then an individual can and will be admitted involuntarily for up to 72 hours. Within that time-frame, said individual is entitled to a court hearing, at which they are entitled to be represented by an attorney, if the treating psychiatrist believes the person is in need of further involuntary hospitalization. It is then up to the court to determine, based on the facts of the case if the individual in question is in need of further involuntary hospitalization.

Unfortunately, I really can't answer the question you are asking. I too would be interested in what case law and precedent is in such a matter, though my interest is not as personal as the case you present.

Personally, I think there is a tremendous amount of grey area in this sector of the law, especially in regards to purchasing firearms and obtaining a CPL. For instance, the concept of a one-time psychotic episode directly caused by a medication reaction or some inadvertent poisoning. I don't think any knowledgable medical person would consider that individual at further risk but how the letter of the law would interpret this is up for grabs.

[MATREDGT]

delete

[joepistol]

I will state up front I'm not a lawyer,and my opinion is worth exactly what you paid for it. (nothing)
But I worked in the Mental Health field for my career (now retired!)
and you would know (have gotten copies of documents stating such)) if you
have ever been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility for treatment. I believe that if the psychiatrist treating you had felt that you should not be allowed to own a firearm,you would have been given information
by him stating this.To deny someone a legal right is serious business & you
would have been advised that if you were denied that right,you could challenge the denial thru our legal system. If you've got no criminal charges against you (or pending) I believe that you are O.K. to get a firearm or CPL.
As a FYI... no medical facility where you were treated can release info about you unless you sigh a release of info for that facility..(& the release has to state who the info is being released to) I had 6 yrs exp.in Calif.
& 20+yrs in Mi working with people committed (invol.)
to mental health units.:crazy: ....Joepistol...:pistols: