Georgia bill would require court review before people involuntarily hospitalized can regain firearm-purchase eligibility

Representative Buckner told the House Judiciary Noncivil subcommittee that House Bill 285 responds to a case in his district in which a person involuntarily hospitalized later attempted to buy a firearm, and local officials intervened to prevent a sale.

The bill, Buckner said, would stop a computerized five-year purge of names from the state background-check list for people involuntarily committed and instead require the individual to petition the court and be evaluated before their name is removed.

Why it matters: The measure would replace an automatic five-year removal with a court-centered process for restoration of the ability to purchase firearms for people who had been involuntarily hospitalized for mental-health reasons. Supporters said the change would reduce the risk that someone who previously posed a danger could legally reacquire firearms after being removed by an automatic system.

Buckner, the bill’s sponsor, told the committee he has pursued similar measures since 2018 and that state data from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation show 2,066 involuntary hospitalizations over seven years and that 95.6% of those people had been purged from the background list. “Prevention is worth a pound of cure,” he said.

The text presented to the panel would require a petition and a hearing — typically in the probate court where the commitment occurred — and would place on the petitioner the burden to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they were no longer likely to act in a manner dangerous to themselves or others. Committee members pressed on details such as whether the petitioner could seek restoration before five years, whether a prosecuting attorney would be served, and whether legal counsel would be required.

Members expressed concern about practical and equity implications. One committee member noted that many people stop taking prescribed psychotropic medication between five and seven years after release from treatment, and worried the current automatic purge could allow people who have stopped medication to regain buying power without an assessment. Other members asked whether the petition process could be costly or effectively require hiring a lawyer; several suggested many petitioners would choose counsel though it might not be legally required. The department or agency cost to administer individualized reviews was described as minimal, while the burden would fall primarily on petitioners to ask the court to restore rights.

The sponsor said his initial draft sought to prevent any early petitions until five years had passed, but that he had adjusted the language after stakeholder input to allow petitions earlier than five years. The chair said the subcommittee lacks a quorum for formal action at the hearing and treated the meeting as a hearing only while encouraging follow-up work with the sponsor and other members.

Ending: No formal action was taken in the subcommittee; the hearing concluded with the sponsor and members agreeing to continue refining the language and to work further with stakeholders.