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.