Okay, a couple of things here. First of all, as you probably know from some of my other posts, I take your general point: The laws, even as they stand, may discourage some folks from getting mental health treatment. And that's a serious problem-- it's why we need a whole other system for mental health, like some of the temporary safe storage options that some are experimenting with now.featureless wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 10:57 am
...lands people who have used or are using the mental health system on a list where there has been no due process. Or, it puts their therapist/doc in the position of sole discretion of adding said person to the list. Or, it treats any mental health patient as suspect and finds them guilty enough to at least deny them a fundamental right. It's persecutory at best. It will absolutely keep people who can be helped by mental health treatment from seeking it out. There's enough stigma around it already.
Because, in California, if I'd been even voluntarily held at the hospital for observation/treatment concerning "mental health" (GAD is in my charts) rather than cardiac health, I'd get a 5 year ban of firearm possession and, depending on who's making the subjective determination, my right to a CCW forever. Doesn't matter one iota that I'm not a danger to myself or others once you get to "apply the system." Hell of a system, eh? 1 out of 10, do not recommend.
However, I believe you are not correct about admitting yourself voluntarily to a mental hospital. In fact, sometimes when a young person goes through intake at a mental hospital, they are told: "Look, you can either admit yourself voluntarily, which means you keep your rights, or roll the dice on whether we demand you stay here involuntarily, and the odds are high you will be held involuntarily."
Of course, that's another problem, because how voluntary is THAT?!
But if you are voluntarily admitted, I don't think you lose your right to own a firearm.
Per 18 USC 922(g)(4), per some ambulance-chasing attorney's website:
"committed to a mental institution" does NOT include someone in a mental hospital for observation or by voluntary admission UNLESS you're being held on a Temporary Detention Order.
Per Gavin Newsom's website:
"California has some of the nation’s strongest laws preventing those with serious mental illness from acquiring firearms. California law requires the immediate reporting of involuntary inpatient and outpatient treatment as well as those under guardianship. Mental health treatment facilities and psychotherapists are also required to report under certain circumstances."
And the circumstances under which we are required to report are imminent threat to a reasonably identifiable other. And remember, the stakes are high: If we breach confidentiality without a good reason to, clients can sue the fuck out of us. (Except for Child and Elder abuse, where we are allowed to make mistakes.)
Also, I can't imagine a situation in which someone with GAD would be held involuntarily.
The more serious risk is when therapists pull the trigger on hospitalization too soon-- if a client says, "I just want to disappear" and doesn't have a plan, and denies they would act on it. There you have situations where you could trigger an involuntary hospitalization and all the crap it entails.
If I've got that wrong, please let me know, maybe there's some new loophole I haven't heard about.