SB 684

Abstract

Involuntary commitment and restoration of firearm rights. Responds to the holding in Paugh v. Henrico Area Mental Health and Developmental Services, Record No. 121562 (2013), in which the Supreme Court of Virginia held that on appeal by trial de novo in circuit court of an order of involuntary commitment by a district court, upon the circuit court's finding that the appellant no longer meets the criteria for involuntary commitment, the proper remedy is dismissal of the Commonwealth's petition for involuntary commitment, thereby rendering the original commitment order a nullity. As such, because the original petition would in effect never have existed, forfeiture of the right to possess a firearm as required by § 18.2-308.1:3 upon involuntary commitment would no longer be in effect. Section 18.2-308.1:3 requires that a person who has been involuntarily committed and seeks to have his firearm rights restored petition a district court for restoration of his firearm rights. The ruling in Paugh, by requiring dismissal of the original petition for commitment, removes that requirement even though on the date of the original commitment hearing the person did meet the criteria for commitment and was, in fact, involuntarily committed. The bill provides that, notwithstanding the outcome of any appeal (trial de novo on the petition for commitment) taken pursuant to § 37.2-821 or § 16.1-345.6, the appellant shall be required to seek restoration of his firearm rights. The bill also provides that, upon a finding by the circuit court that the appellant no longer meets the criteria for involuntary commitment or mandatory outpatient treatment, the court shall reverse the order of the district court but shall not dismiss the Commonwealth's petition. As a consequence of these changes, a person who is involuntarily committed would be required to petition for restoration of his firearm rights notwithstanding the reversal of the commitment order by a circuit court.

Involuntary commitment and restoration of firearm rights.Responds to the holding in Paugh v. Henrico Area Mental Health andDevelopmental Services, Record No. 121562 (2013), in which the SupremeCourt of Virginia held that on appeal by trial de novo in circuit court of anorder of involuntary commitment by a district court, upon the circuit court'sfinding that the appellant no longer meets the criteria for involuntarycommitment, the proper remedy is dismissal of the Commonwealth's petition forinvoluntary commitment, thereby rendering the original commitment order anullity. As such, because the original petition would in effect never haveexisted, forfeiture of the right to possess a firearm as required by §18.2-308.1:3 upon involuntary commitment would no longer be in effect. Section18.2-308.1:3 requires that a person who has been involuntarily committed andseeks to have his firearm rights restored petition a district court forrestoration of his firearm rights. The ruling in Paugh, by requiringdismissal of the original petition for commitment, removes that requirementeven though on the date of the original commitment hearing the person did meetthe criteria for commitment and was, in fact, involuntarily committed. The billprovides that notwithstanding the outcome of any appeal (trial de novo on thepetition for commitment) taken pursuant to § 37.2-821, the appellant shall berequired to seek restoration of his firearm rights. The bill also provides thatupon a finding by the circuit court that the appellant no longer meets thecriteria for involuntary commitment or mandatory outpatient treatment, thecourt shall reverse the order of the district court but shall not dismiss theCommonwealth's petition. As a consequence of these changes, a person who isinvoluntarily committed would be required to petition for restoration of hisfirearm rights notwithstanding the reversal of the commitment order by acircuit court.