Involuntary commitment for observation pursuant to § 302 of Pennsylvania Mental Health Procedures Act is not an adjudication or commitment under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) sufficient to deny an application for purchase of or possession of a firearm.

Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Schmehl found that an involuntary commitment for observation pursuant to Section 302 of the Pennsylvania Mental Health Procedures Act (50 P.S. § 7302) is not an adjudication or commitment under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) sufficient to deny an application for purchase of or possession of a firearm. The plaintiff attempted to purchase a firearm on May 3, 2018, but was denied by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System because of his involuntary commitment under § 302. The court held that a § 302 commitment lacked the adjudicative or adversarial process to qualify as an adjudication under § 922(g)(4). Additionally, due to the limited timeframe and the observational purpose of § 302, it does not qualify as a sufficient commitment under § 922(g)(5). The practical implication of this ruling is that § 302 commitments will not qualify as sufficient commitment to deny ownership under federal law. However, the Eastern District has upheld Pennsylvania’s restrictions on gun possession and ownership after a § 302 commitment, a decision which will likely be upheld by the Third Circuit.

_{Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2019}

_{Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2019 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}