It’s been published in the federal register. This is the first step an agency takes when it wants to change a rule, according to the Administrative Procedure Act. This is a proposal. There will be a public comment period, where the public can provide feedback. The docket number for this proposed change is ATF 51P. Reader Chris sent me some analysis which I agree with, so I will reproduce it here:

Big changes I saw:

– People who are not-guilty by means of insanity will be prohibited.

Comment: Sen Begich proposed a federal law that would have done the same thing, S480. S480 served as a sort of “RINO and DINO 2A Liferaft,” offering a refuge for lawmakers who need to look pro-2A but also need to Do Something For the Children. ATF’s ruling will take S480 off the table in the future. It basically closes off a safety valve that allowed lawmakers to duck a tough vote.

– ATF is considering clarifying whether the term ‘‘committed to a mental institution’’ includes a commitment that occurred when the person was under the age of 18.

Comment: I wonder if people under age 18 receive the same due process rights as adults when being committed to treatment.

– In addition, the Department proposes amending the definition of ‘‘committed

to a mental institution’’ to clarify that involuntary commitment to a mental

institution includes both inpatient and outpatient treatment.

Comment: The final text of the ruling here will be critical. Does mandatory court-ordered substance abuse or anger management or marital counseling qualify as “involuntary outpatient treatment?” S480 used different, more specific language: “required involuntary outpatient treatment by a psychiatric hospital based on a finding that the person is an imminent danger to himself or to others; or”

– Persons are not considered to have been ‘‘committed to a mental institution’’ as a result of a voluntary admission to a mental institution or a temporary admission for observation unless the temporary admission for observation turns into a qualifying

commitment as a result of a formal commitment by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority.

Comment: “Other lawful authority” gives me pause… Does a nurse and cop authorizing a 72 hour hold qualify? Hopefully no. S480 used different, more precise language to rule out this possibility. S480 also read that it would NOT include, “a person who is in a psychiatric hospital for observation;”

Finally, S480 included relief for individuals who were no longer a danger to themselves or others.

Really, the ATF rule looks like a way to take S480 off the table, and to run with the most restrictive aspects of S480 without any of the protections Begich/Graham had written in.