January 14, 2012, 12:35 PM | #1 |
Member
Join Date: September 7, 2011
Posts: 22
|
US v. Rehlander.
Long story short, a man was involuntarily committed to a mental institution ex parte. Meaning that he wasn't there when they did it, nor was his lawyer. Later we was arrested charged and convicted of being in possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. He appealed the ruling where it landed at the 1st circuit. The first circuit just ruled that his 2A rights cannot be taken away without him having and advocate at the proceeding. The brief (over 100 pages) and opinion are attached.
|
January 14, 2012, 10:51 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 3, 2011
Location: Vernon AZ
Posts: 1,195
|
Interesting. Thanks for pointing this out.
|
January 15, 2012, 12:30 AM | #3 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
This was a good decision that may well affect other cases, now at the docket.
Quote:
|
|
January 15, 2012, 02:06 PM | #4 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,846
|
I have to wonder how something like this happens. Does a family member (or an enemy?) simply show up with a lawyer and request a commitment hearing? What kind of "proof" could they present to convince any court to commit someone, without the court even considering hearing the other side of the case?
Not having the details (and not wanting to wade through a 100page legal brief, where I might not find the answers anyway), it would appear that the mans rights were violated because proper due process was not followed, not because he wasn't crazy. Obviously there is a backstory to this that I don't have access to, which makes me wonder just how such a situation could come about in the first place.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
January 15, 2012, 03:20 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
|
When there is money involved, yes, family or others that could gain, can have a person involuntarily committed so they can get control of whatever assests the committed person is "mismanaging"
I remember one case where the guy was a widower, and hooked up with a lovely young thing. He spent a lot of money giving presents to this gal and his kids did not like "their inheritence" being wasted on someone they did not like so they tried to get a judge to declare their dad mentally incompitent to care for his own affairs, with them as trustees. Made good reading in the new paper anyway.` |
January 16, 2012, 04:22 PM | #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
Quote:
Think of the situation where police are called to an intersection and a guy is waving a steak knife around threatening to cut his own throat. The guy would generally be hospitalized on an emergency basis. He might then agree to voluntary treatment for a longer period or be involuntarily committed after an adversarial hearing. It is this involuntary commitment that, according to this opinion, terminates the patient's right to own firearms. The situation that hermannr describes is different, though often handled by the same courts and employing some of the same professional teams. A person may be declared incompetent to handle his or her finances and/or their personal affairs. A guardian/conservator is then appointed. This is commonly and legitimately done when dementia sets in and the person has not made provisions through a durable power of attorney. Practices vary state by state, of course. Added: I was professionally involved in a situation like hermannr described a number of years ago. There are no winners in those. |
|
|
|