We had a couple of recent threads on the issue of reporting court ordered outpatient mental health court orders to NICS. Sig210 posted this link to a DOJ "Notice of proposed rule making."
https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-insp...2014-00039.pdf But, this asked for public comment on
how to treat those committed to a mental health institution prior to 18 years of age. It doesn't deal with the
outpatient treatment issue.

Within the Notice of Proposed Rule Making is a citation to United States of American v B.H
(US v. BH, 466 F. Supp. 2d 1139 - Dist. Court, ND Iowa 2006)

Google Scholar

This case is worth reading carefully as it sheds some considerable legal light on what we were discussing.

B.H. was indisputably nuts. In August of 2002 a warrant authorized the search of B.H.'s premises and vehicles, and the seizure of firearms, other dangerous weapons and ammunition, "being held in violation of the laws of this state (IA)."

In Sept. 2002 a court appointed mental health "referee" ordered B.H. immediately committed as an
out-patient for a complete evaluation and appropriate treatment. The referee also ordered B.H. to be medicated by injection, and if he refused the referee stated she might order him to undergo inpatient treatment. He was never an inpatient, and was later discharged from treatment by the outpatient facility.

A state District Court Judge ordered the return of the seized items by Dec. 9 2003, but on Dec 5, 2003 Federal Agents seized the items from the Sheriff's Office.

The Court wrote:

"18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4). There are two fighting issues: (1) whether B.H. is a prohibited person,
that is, whether he was "adjudicated as a mental defective"[10] or "committed to a mental institution" on
September 4, 2002, and (2) if so, whether the court may order the government to turn the firearms and
ammunition over to a third party for a sale, with B.H. receiving the proceeds.
__________________________________________________ __

Please, you all read the case. And pay attention to what the Federal Court did with the phrase
"committed to a mental institution."

Doing so will bring clarity (though certainly no agreement) to what the news media have
been calling a new administration policy with respect to court ordered outpatient treatment.

Let's please discuss US v B.H. and the meaning of the phrase "committed to a mental institution"
and not politics. The meaning of the underlying law, how the courts understand it, is worthy
of careful and serious discussion.