Guess we’ll have to see what the courts say. It’s not like the AG is a big Tim Kaine fan, though, so I would expect that there is some actual legal grounds to the Executive Order unless you’re saying the McDonnel was also looking for something politically expedient.

My understanding of the interpretation is that the law covers those admitted involuntarily to a “treatment facility. ” The Executive Order takes a broader approach to what constitutes a treatment facility and interprets that to extend to any facility, inpatient or outpatient. The change to calling it a treatment facility was as a result of court interpretations and was made in 2005.

On what grounds do you say this is unconstitutional (and I assume you are referring to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia and not the US Constitution)?

Why someone, who was determined to be a danger by a court, is allowed to wander freely at all is deeply disturbing. But rather than address whether it’s a good idea to have dangerous mental patients roaming about or not, we’re concerning ourselves with whether these mental patients wandering about in our midst should be disallowed firearms, but permitted to drive, operate heavy machinery, purchase large quantities of fertilizer, or obtain dangerous weapons on the black market.

This executive order is unlikely to make us safer at all, but it sure does provide political cover. Too bad it’s unconstitutional.

Do not confuse inpatient and outpatient mental health care with something like inpatient vs. outpatient surgery. In many cases, “outpatient” treatment may very well mean that the person is under supervised care 16 hours of the day and is allowed to leave the treatment facility to go to work or school (and in those cases, may have to report in on a set scheduled while not treated at a facility). This isn’t a case where a person sees a shrink once or twice a week and is left to their own devices for the rest of the time.

Most of us who want to scrupulously adhere to the law feel rather uncomfortable when an act of a Governor, not of the individual, makes one be in violation of the law. The general concept of our legal system is that a prosecutable criminal act is something that the alleged criminal has to do, and that’s why we generally disdain retroactive laws. This condition makes prosecution completely a matter of discretion rather than law, and that should be intolerable.

If great numbers of people have done nothing illegal, but because of a retroactive law are now technically noncompliant with a provision, they are at the mercy of their government as to whether they will be subjected to prosecution or not. I can’t imagine a condition more dangerous to liberty. We increasingly are becoming a society of unindicted criminals who reasonably fear that if we dare to criticize our masters we risk having the awesome power of the state descend and make an example of us.

If these people are so dangerous as to be caught in 37.2-819, I can’t understand how outpatient treatment could ever be appropriate. That’s the crux of the problem, not whether such ordered treatment should revoke one’s rights.

I do have those same reservations about those already on the list, but their placement on the list was by act of the legislature, not executive decree. The legislature does have the authority in such matters, and the Governor by himself does not. I’m also concerned that the process to remove one’s name from the NICS list — with good cause — in some circumstances is nearly insurmountable, and that there’s no facility for citizens to know whether they’re on the list or not until they fill out a Form 4473 with what they believe is accurate information.

Someone who got caught up in this from a long-ago incident, at which time they had no idea they might become a disqualified person ten years later, could easily and innocently say on a 4473 that they are not prohibited when they actually are, and by saying that and there being a NICS record on them, would in fact have committed a felony for providing inaccurate information on the 4473, as well as in violation for every firearm they might have purchased since the incident up until the time they learned they were prohibited persons.

This is hasty, it’s entirely political, and I am concerned there are significant downsides here that haven’t been adequately considered.

Second, it does not apply to *anyone* who seeks *voluntary* inpatient or outpatient treatment, so the claim that someone will not seek mental health treatment on his or her own is specious. The Executive Order, again, only applies to treatment as prescribed under 37.2-817. So the emotional quote from the returning soldier suffering from PTSD only serves to tug on our heartstrings, but has little bearing on the actual intent and implementation of the Executive Order.

Do you have the same reservations about the people who have had involuntary inpatient treatment 10, 15, 20 years ago but are still “on the list”? In essence, the only difference between involuntary inpatient and outpatient recommendations comes down to the ability of the city or county community services board to provide the proper treatment through an outpatient faciltiy (something not readily available in all Virginia jurisdictions).

Read 37.2-819. The form and order are only used to determine eligibility to possess, purchase, or transfer a firearm and are otherwise kept confidential. It is not used for employment screening and other background checks. For security clearances, depending on the level of clearance sought, there is already a section of the standard form that requires disclosure of any voluntary or involuntary inpatient or outpatient treatment for mental health disorders, so again, the concern that this reporting will impact clearances is, again, specious. In fact, as part of the clearance application process, you must sign a general release that allows investigators to review your medical and other (normally) private information. The presence of this data in the CCRE and NICS database would only expose someone who failed to disclose this required information in the first place (in and of itself grounds for rejection of a clearance and possibly a felony).

[Ed note: This comment posted from an IP address inside Manassas Park City Hall.]