Under federal statute, individuals "adjudicated as mental defective" cannot legally purchase a firearm. But what does that phrase mean, exactly? The definition isn't found in statute, but in ATF regulations. The agency is offering up a new rule that would clear up some of the confusion by making it crystal clear that simply having a fiduciary appointed to help manage your finances doesn't disqualify someone. An involuntary commitment to a mental health facility would qualify as an adjudication, but a voluntary admission would not.
As part of the rule-making process, ATF is required to warn the public about any possible harms that might come from the rule. In this case, the agency submitted language that the risk of this particular change "may be minimal, or may be considerably greater (up to and including potential mass casualty events), based upon the strength of state and federal processes regarding guardianship and involuntary commitment.”
The gun control lobby and their friends at the Washington Post have seized on that language to declare that the Trump administration is ready and willing to disarm the dangerously mentally ill.
The “mass casualty” warning was included in a proposal to lift restrictions that currently prohibit people from possessing guns if they have been deemed not mentally fit to handle their Social Security or veterans’ benefits.
The ATF proposal would allow people to buy guns even if they have been deemed unfit to handle those benefits, with officials saying that someone being deemed incompetent to handle their finances does not mean that they cannot responsibly handle firearms.
The proposal would also clarify that people who are involuntarily committed to a mental health institution would be barred from owning firearms, people who voluntarily went to such facilities would not be.
“ATF’s admission that these policy changes could result in mass casualties is a slap in the face to every American who checks for the exits every time they walk into a movie theater, mall or house of worship,” John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun control advocacy group, said in a statement.
Any purchase of a firearm could theoretically lead to a mass shooting, just as any purchase of a sharp, pointy knife could lead to a mass stabbing; sales of alcohol could lead to drunk driving deaths, and sales of cars could lead to mass casualty events involving a madman behind the wheel.
More than 99.9% of gun purchases, however, will not lead to any kind of mass shooting. And Feinblatt's objections about the rule change beg the question: does Everytown believe that someone who voluntarily seeks mental health treatment should be prohibited from purchasing a gun for the rest of their life?
The deprivation of rights for those who've had a fiduciary appointed for them has led to hundreds of thousands of Americans being unable to exercise their Second Amendment rights, even if they can still vote, drive a car, or pick up a six-pack at their local grocery store. It makes no sense that these individuals should be prohibited from possessing a firearm solely because they need some help managing their financial affairs, and the ATF's proposed rule is a big step in the right direction.
The voluntary seeking of in-patient mental health treatment has never been treated as a disqualifying event under the Gun Control Act, but it sure sounds like Everytown's leadership thinks it should be.
Banning gun possession for people who voluntarily seek mental health treatment is a great way to prevent people from seeking mental health treatment. https://t.co/hltBZMaASv
— Open Source Defense (@opensrcdefense) June 15, 2026
Yep. We should be working to remove the stigma around mental health treatment, but honestly, that works against the gun control lobby's agenda.
I hate to put it so callously, but it's true: the gun control lobby benefits from high suicide and homicide rates involving firearms. It gives them something to point at as a problem that can only be solved through the restrictive policies they're pushing.
As we've talked about extensively hear at Bearing Arms, gun-involved homicides are plunging to levels that haven't been seen since at least 1960, and probably not for a century or more. That's great news for the general public, but it's terrible if you believe that more guns equals more crime.
Gun-involved suicides, on the other hand, have climbed in recent years. In 2024, firearms accounted for 57% of all suicides,up from 50% a decade earlier (though the Kaiser Family Foundation does note that some suicide deaths involving drugs may be mischaracterized as unintentional oversodes, which in turn would lead to an undercounting of those deaths).
If you're really invested in bringing that number down, the first and most important thing to do is to encourage gun owners to take care of their mental health, whether through counseling, therapy, or in-patient treatment if someone is in an acute crisis.
Some gun control activists, however, see these numbers as an opportunity to weaponize the mental health system by disqualifying the "mentally ill" from exercising their Second Amendment rights. That could mean something like Seasonal Affective Disorder or grief-induced depression in addition to diagnoses like schizophrenia or Borderline Personality Disorder.
When my wife died, I had multiple sessions with a grief counselor. I have no doubt that I was depressed, and if I'm being honest I still struggle with that depression today. Some research indicates that widows and widowers are two to three times more likely to commit suicide than the general population. Is the fact that I spoke to someone about navigating my grief enough to deprive me of my right to keep and bear arms? There ant-gun activists out there who wouldn't hesitate to say "yes."
If I knew that seeing a counselor would disqualify me from owning a gun, there is no way I would have sought help. The same is true if I believed I needed the more acute help offered in an in-patient setting. If doing so would mean I could no longer legally possess firearms, I would have simply struggled to make sense of my grief on my own, without the assistance of a counselor.
I have never thought about taking my life after Miss E died, and I don't think that would have changed if I'd been forced to wrestle with my grief by myself. I have no doubt, though, that weaponizing mental health treatment against gun owners would lead to more lives being lost as some of them would simply refuse to get the help they need. That would be an appalling outcome... unless you're an anti-gun activist who believes people should have to choose between their rights and their mental health.
