Revising Definitions of Adjudicated as a Mental Defective and Committed to a Mental Institution

The National Rifle Association (NRA) supports the spirit of the proposed rulemaking to revise the definitions of "adjudicated as a mental defective" and "committed to a mental institution" because the current 1997 definitions are unconstitutional. However, they argue the proposal should be further revised to ensure it does not exceed statutory authority by including mental illness (rather than just intellectual capacity), allowing administrative rather than judicial adjudications, or including outpatient commitments.

The commenter opposes the ATF's proposed revisions to the definitions of "adjudicated as a mental defective" and "committed to a mental institution," arguing that the expansion infringes on Second Amendment rights and due process. They contend that the rule lacks historical precedent, exceeds statutory authority, and could chill individuals from seeking mental healthcare.

An individual veteran supports the proposed rule change because it prevents responsible long-term financial planning (like creating a trust) from resulting in an immediate loss of firearm ownership rights. The commenter argues that the clarification protects constitutional rights for those planning for the future.

The commenter opposes the proposed revisions, arguing that they could endanger the public by making it easier for mentally unstable individuals to obtain firearms. They advocate for stricter controls to prevent "crazed" individuals from accessing weapons to carry out mass casualty events.