Appeals court rules mental-health ban on gun ownership might violate Second Amendment

[Midwest]

Appeals court rules mental-health ban on gun ownership might violate Second Amendment


The law (1968 Gun Control Act) says that people once committed to mental health institution years are permanently barred from owning a gun might violate the second amendment according to an appeals court.

(I believe this is an update to an older story. It is dated Sept. 16 2016, just yesterday. )

At issue was a man who was committed 25 years ago for 30 days and since then has a clean bill of health. The man failed a background check in 2011 while trying to buy a gun.



http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/09/1...ownership-might-violate-second-amendment.html

"A divided federal appeals court ruled that a decades-old federal law indefinitely banning people committed to mental health treatment from owning a gun could violate the Second Amendment."

And....


..... “none of the government’s evidence squarely answers the key question at the heart of this case: Is it reasonably necessary to forever bar all previously institutionalized persons from owning a firearm?”​
.

 

[Frank Ettin]

The case is Tyler v Hillsdale County Sheriff's Department (Sixth Circuit, No. 13-1876), and this is another example of a news article botching a report on an important legal matter.

The case was originally heard by a three judge panel in the Sixth Circuit, and a decsion favorable to Tyler was issued in December of 2014. We discussed that opinion here.

That decision was vacated (tossed out) when a petition for a re-hearing en banc (by the entire Sixth Circuit) was granted. The en banc decision was issue on 15 September.

Please read the new opinion at this link: Tyler v Hillsdale County Sheriff's Department (Sixth Circuit, No. 13-1876, September, 2016).

Discussion in this thread should be based on the 2016 opinion.

 

[hdwhit]

Here's the actual opinion: http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0234p-06.pdf

The attorneys who moderate this forum have repeatedly said that we should look to the actual decision and not media reports for the particulars of the opinion, so it would be nice if people posting about these decisions would take the tiny amount of time needed to get the link to the court's actual decision as well as the news report instead of leaving that to others.

It is very simple, do a Yahoo or Google search for the name of the court; in this case, "6th Circuit Court of Appeals" which will return the court's website at the top of the search results. Once on the court's website, look for "Opinions" or "Decisions" and then search for the party's name. In the case of CA6's site, I selected "Opinions Last 10 Days" and then looked down the list until I found Mr. Clifford's name and then clicked on the hyperlink. It has actually taken me longer to type these instructions than it did to get the URL.

So, come on, everyone, make your posts more thorough and complete.

 

[Midwest]

Here's the actual opinion: http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0234p-06.pdf

The attorneys who moderate this forum have repeatedly said that we should look to the actual decision and not media reports for the particulars of the opinion, so it would be nice if people posting about these decisions would take the tiny amount of time needed to get the link to the court's actual decision as well as the news report instead of leaving that to others.

It is very simple, do a Yahoo or Google search for the name of the court; in this case, "6th Circuit Court of Appeals" which will return the court's website at the top of the search results. Once on the court's website, look for "Opinions" or "Decisions" and then search for the party's name. In the case of CA6's site, I selected "Opinions Last 10 Days" and then looked down the list until I found Mr. Clifford's name and then clicked on the hyperlink. It has actually taken me longer to type these instructions than it did to get the URL.

So, come on, everyone, make your posts more thorough and complete.

Really?

Interesting... No one else bothered to post this important ruling, so I did. I'll think twice before posting here again. Maybe someone will get around to eventually posting it. Seriously, who needs this?
.

 

[Red Wind]

Really?

Interesting... No one else bothered to post this important ruling, so I did. I'll think twice before posting here again. Maybe someone will get around to eventually posting it. Seriously, who needs this?

I have to agree. Midwest, you are constantly giving us pertinent info on legal matters. Don't let this unnecessary lecture bother you.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Here's the actual opinion: http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0234p-06.pdf

....

Really?

Interesting... No one else bothered to post this important ruling, so I did. I'll think twice before posting here again. Maybe someone will get around to eventually posting it. Seriously, who needs this?

Guys, really? Is this necessary?

First, I thank hdwhit for finding and posting a link to the actual opinion. He's been very helpful in that way in a number of threads. And he is correct that we must have the opinion in order to be able to discuss the case intelligently.

But I also owe a "thank you" to Midwest for bringing to our attention that the en banc decision in this important case was out. He's been very helpful letting us know about developments quickly. In this case, the en banc decision came out only two days ago.

So thank you, both.

 

[CapnMac]

I had forgotten just how much work goes into reading one of these. But, the sound logic and thoroughness, and the glimmers of hope that we might actually see some of the "foregone conclusions" of GCA '68 reexamined helped me power through it..

 

[MEHavey]

I'm just a engineer, so I like to reduce things to basic elements. So if I read this correctly,
all the court did was:

- State that Heller found the Gov't had to apply strict scrutiny in denying a basic right.

- Find that blanket denial on the basis of involuntary commitment for any reason,
...at any time in anyone's life did not pass the strict scrutiny test.

- Sent the case back down to actually apply that test in light of current circumstance
.. instead of the BATF simply denying the petition outright.

That's a far cry from the headlines stating "The mentally ill now have the right to guns"
(And it also shows the importance of that now vulnerable 5-4 Heller decision)

 

[ilbob]

It appears to me that all this decision is going to require is more litigation on a case by case basis.

My guess is that the courts are mostly going to side with the law as is and few if any who have been involuntarily committed will ever get their second amendment rights restored.

In the long run though, it is certainly not harmful to the 2A and might actually end up nudging congress into funding the mechanism for restoring 2A rights.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...if I read this correctly,
all the court did was:

- State that Heller found the Gov't had to apply strict scrutiny in denying a basic right.

- Find that blanket denial on the basis of involuntary commitment for any reason,
...at any time in anyone's life did not pass the strict scrutiny test.

- Sent the case back down to actually apply that test in light of current circumstance
.. instead of the BATF simply denying the petition outright....

That's not exactly right. Sixteen judged heard the case, and there were a number of opinions -- some concurring with Judge Gibbons' lead opinion, some concurring in part, some concurring in the result if not the reasoning, and some dissenting. Perhaps the best summary is stated in Judge Gibbons' conclusion (slip op., at 27):

Thus, we conclude that Tyler has a viable claim under the Second Amendment and that the government has not justified a lifetime ban on gun possession by anyone who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to a mental institution,” 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4). Because there are a number of separate opinions in this case, it is imperative that we clearly state the next steps. As I read the opinions, ten of us would reverse the district court; six of us would not. And at least twelve of us agree that intermediate scrutiny should be applied, if we employ a scrutiny-based analysis. It seems therefore that, given the views of the court, the proper resolution of the case is to reverse and remand to the district court for the application of intermediate scrutiny to determine the statute’s constitutionality as applied to Tyler. As we see it, the government may justify § 922(g)(4) in one of two ways: (1) with additional evidence explaining the necessity of § 922(g)(4)’s lifetime ban or (2) with evidence showing that § 922(g (4) is constitutional as applied to Tyler because he would be a risk to himself or others were he allowed to possess a firearm

 

[MEHavey]

So the key word is "intermediate" scrutiny

In order to overcome the intermediate scrutiny test, it must be shown that the law or policy being challenged furthers an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest.

That should be contrasted with strict scrutiny, the higher standard of review that requires narrowly tailored and least restrictive means to further a compelling governmental interest.

"Intermediate" sounds like a prosecutorial hole that the Gov't could still drive a truck through to get what it wants.

Is that too much an overstatement given what is now so politicized as to be a yes-or-no litmus test of future judicial nominees?