Posted on 02/21/2009 7:43:27 PM PST by Jones_the_King
On Feb. 14 2009, I was charged with two crimes, § 18.2-308.1:2 and § 18.2-308.2:2.
The misdemeanor first:
§ 18.2-308.1:2. Purchase, possession or transportation of firearm by persons adjudicated legally incompetent or mentally incapacitated; penalty.
It shall be unlawful for any person who has been adjudicated (i) legally incompetent pursuant to former § 37.1-128.02 or former § 37.1-134, (ii) mentally incapacitated pursuant to former § 37.1-128.1 or former § 37.1-132
I wasn't adjudicated any of that stuff in italics because the statutes that this law is pursuant to expired in 2005.
or (iii) incapacitated pursuant to Chapter 10 (§ 37.2-1000 et seq.) of Title 37.2 and whose competency or capacity has not been restored pursuant to former § 37.1-134.1 or § 37.2-1012, to purchase, possess, or transport any firearm. A violation of this section shall be punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor.
(1994, c. 907; 1997, c. 921; 2004, c. 995.)
That's not applicable because A) I never have been assigned a guardian or a conservator and B) if the state said I had been, then they should have been served with the warrants, not me.
Now for the felony.
§ 18.2-308.2:2 at part K:
K. Any person willfully and intentionally making a materially false statement on the consent form required in subsection B or C or on such firearm transaction records as may be required by federal law, shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony.
From the misdemeanor, I assume that the felony is questioning my answer of "No" to Question F. on the ATF's Form 4473
Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?
To read the full story, here's a link: http://stevebarbertruthsquad.blogspot.com/2009/02/truth-will-out.html
Huh?
Steven Barber was Temporarily Detained and expelled from UVA-Wise. He bought a gun, and they have now come to him saying that he lied on his forms, supposedly over the “have you ever been committed” question.
He now argues that “mentally ill” and "a danger to himself or others, or so seriously mentally ill that he can not care for himself” is not the legal equivalent of “mentally incapacitated.”
(3 days later, he was stable enough to be released. That time frame of a quick hospitalization is nothing unusual. It gives time for the meds to kick in, the stress to be relieved, etc.)
Pardon what may seem to be a pun, but a person would have to be crazy to make such a claim as he now makes.
I DO NOT want this guy near my house with a weapon!
http://picasaweb.google.com/faroukaliraqi/ProofTwo#5304764734642585282
“Steve DOES NOT argue “that ‘mentally ill’ and ‘a danger to himself or others, or so seriously mentally ill that he can not care for himself’ is not the legal equivalent of ‘mentally incapacitated.’”
He in fact argues that even though a magistrate found probable cause to believe he was a threat to himself and others, and that there was probable cause to believe he was mentally ill, ***the special justice ruled that he was NONE OF THOSE THINGS.***
On February 29, 2002, person appointed by the state found him “Mentally Ill,” which by his admission is the legal equivalent of “Mentally Incapacitated.”
On March, 2, 2002, he was found to NOT be “Mentally Ill,” fit to be released, etc. Again, this was done by a person appointed by the state to make such a finding.
Nothing in the March 2 order states that we was never mentally ill, that he never should have been committed, etc. It simply states that at the time he and/his attorney appeared before the special judge on or about March 2, that he was THEN not in need of involuntary hospitalization.
He could always try to go back and make a case that he never was mentally ill, and he may be able to have the first commitment order expunged, rather than simply revoked, but as for now, he was found to be mentally ill for a period of three days, so must make special application to purchase a new firearm.
A magistrate finding probably cause to believe in mental illness and a special justice of the court adjudicating mental illness based on three days of evaluation are not synonymous.
According to what statute would he require a special application?
The legislation that empowers the question on the “yellow sheet”!
You aren’t serious about that question, are you?
No, it was rhetorical.
I was simply saying that justice declaring probable cause of mental illness and a justice adjudicating mental illness are separate things.
The purpose of the hearing on this page
http://picasaweb.google.com/faroukaliraqi/Purpose#5304763801776381618
was to determine if he was mentally ill, then the ninth point would take effect of him not being able to purchase guns. But the hearing did not find him to be mentally ill, quite the opposite, and the proof can be found on this page:
http://picasaweb.google.com/faroukaliraqi/ProofTwo#5304764734642585282
Which I linked to before. Since the court did not find him mentally ill and he was thus not involuntarily committed, the gun restriction never took place.
Now if the court at the hearing found him mentally ill and had him involuntarily committed, then I would agree with you that the ninth point on the hearing purposes page would take effect, but the court records show that he was not.
The “yellow sheet” did not ask “were you ever declared mentally incompetent and such finding not reversed” or “are you now under a judgment of mental incompetence.” (or words to that effect.) It asks “Were you ever.”
He is trying to claim that since he was found sane after a brief hospitalization, the original finding is without merit.
It would be like getting busted for having no driver's license, getting one before your court date and then arguing that the original citation was invalid because you now have a DL. Mitigating as to penalty, yes. An affirmative defense, no.
It's like getting busted for drinking a month before your 21st birthday, getting the case postponed 60 days, then asking for dismissal because you were now legal to drink!
Sorry, one can not be a little bit pregnant. He was adjudged Mentally Ill for 3 days. The matter is closed.
Sorry, typo:
Your posting ignores the overriding fact that 3 days earlier than the finding of “currently not mentally ill,” a judicial officer of competent authority had found him “Mentally Ill.”
Im having trouble identifying which documents your citing, but I assume that your talking about the Temporary Detention Order, which is an order of detainment, not committal, as it says in his post. The TDO is also done by a magistrate, who does not have the authority to temporarily detain, only to issue a warrant for detainment.
“The “Magistrate” is the Judge who will issue the warrant.
Keep in mind that this warrant does not guarantee
admission, but rather guarantees evaluation for the
need of treatment in the least restrictive environment.”
Yes, the magistrate did find probable cause to have Mr. Barber evaluated, but that does not mean that he was committed. Three days later Mr. Barber finished his evaluation and the court found he was not Mentally ill, and ruled that their was no need to have him committed or to have his gun rights revoked.
sorry, I did a typo myself. The TDO is also done by a magistrate, who does not have the authority to have you committed to a mental institution, only to issue a warrant for detainment.
Please, this is my last post on this.
It is very simple.
The ATF form asked: “Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?”
He answered “no” and swore to the truth of that statement.
A properly appointed agent of the State had previously signed an order that read in part (Steven Daniel Barbar is) “Mentally ill and in need of hospitalization, a danger to himself or others.”
I don’t care if it is an order for detention, an order for detainment, an order of confinement, an order for treatment or a judge’s order for a ham sandwich. The order said he was Mentally Ill.
Period. EOS
He was adjudicated mentally defective. Stop with the jailhouse lawyer krep about how he wasn’t this or that, that is was a magistrate not a judge, that no conservator was assigned so it’s not real, etc.
To adjudicate is to make an official decision with implications. The magistrate decided he was crazy…. and the more I hear about the case, I think the magistrate was right!
He perjured himself and he knows it.
The law is expected to be blind. It is not expected to be stupid. Judges do not like people who try to “game” the judicial system.
End of case.
Very well, I wont hold you to reply then. But I must stress that a magistrate’s order for you to be evaluated for a mental evaluation is not the same as a special justice adjudicating mental illness. You apparently would make the case that a warrant for an evaluation counts the same as being committed for the supposed “wrongdoing”. I believe this is a wrong and dangerous way of thinking. If a supposed crime dealt with body weight and a magistrate signed a warrant for you to be evaluated by a physician, that does not mean that you are immediately found guilty of the supposed wrongdoing. Its only AFTER the evaluation that the laws against you take effect.
You said:
A properly appointed agent of the State had previously signed an order that read in part (Steven Daniel [sic] Barbar is) “Mentally ill and in need of hospitalization, a danger to himself or others.”
I don’t care if it is an order for detention, an order for detainment, an order of confinement, an order for treatment or a judge’s order for a ham sandwich. The order said he was Mentally Ill.
How do you interpret
"...the undersigned judicial officer finds PROBABLE CAUSE to believe that the respondent pursuant to § 37.2-809 is mentally ill and in need of hospitalization..."
to fit the criteria established by the ATF form?
And while I'm sure you don't care if the TDO was an order for 'a ham sandwich', the law manifestly does.
You are staking your case on your interpretation and belief that the use of the term “probable cause” somehow reduces the effectiveness or totality of the temporary order that placed you in the mental hospital, It does not.
Secondly, The 4432 goes on to ask “.... have you ever been committed to a mental hospital?” You were. Period.
If you are trying to argue that one set of words used in a legally mandated, judge ordered placement is different from the word “committed” for the purposes of the law, and therefore you were not committed to a mental hospital, then have your day in court, son. But if you are trying to defend yourself in this criminal matter on those grounds, then expect to have evenly a marginally qualified prosecutor send to you to prison for years.
Just a matter of curiosity, when did you buy the firearm(s) in the instant case, not the ones that were taken away when you were arrested at school, but when did you purchase the second weapon or set of weapons.
The state statute § 18.2-308.1:3 deals with that.
In fact, it reads: It shall be unlawful for any person...who was the subject of a temporary detention order pursuant to § 37.2-809 [I was] and subsequently agreed to voluntary admission pursuant to § 37.2-805 [I did not] to purchase, possess or transport a firearm....
The form here proves that I did not seek voluntary treatment.
And imagine the absurdity if you had uttered, "You are staking your case on your interpretation and belief that the use of the term "probable cause" somehow reduces the effectiveness or totality of the arrest warrant that places in you jail. It does not."
Absurd. Just because someone was arrested for a crime does not mean, de facto, that the person in question is subject to laws that only apply to those who are convicted of crimes.
Refrain from calling me 'son.' Ignorance isn't congenital. And neither is insanity.
And to answer your question, I attempted to purchase a firearm in October of 2008.
You were.
You answered under oath “no.”
You liked under oath.
You got caught.
Take your punishment like a man. Stop trying to crybaby your way out of this.... or stop proving beyond any doubt how right the original committing Magistrate was.
PS. You say, “Ignorance isn't congenital. And neither is insanity.” You are right. You apparently got this one all on your own, sport.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.