US appeals court deems gun law unconstitutional

[Midwest]

US appeals court deems gun law unconstitutional

A court ruled that a Federal Ban on gun ownership that kept a man from owning a gun because he was committed to a mental institution is violation of the man's Second Amendment Rights.



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/12/19/us-appeals-court-deems-gun-law-unconstitutional/



"A federal appeals court in Cincinnati deemed a law unconstitutional that kept a Michigan man who was committed to a mental institution from owning a gun. The three-judge panel of the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that a federal ban on gun ownership for those who have been committed to a mental institution violated the Second Amendment rights of 73-year-old Clifford Charles Tyler."
.

 

[MErl]

Looks to only apply in Michigan and only because the state does not have an appeals process at all. He had nowhere to contest his lawful denial so the court threw it out.

I'd guess the outcome will be the state employing one man whose job is to say "no" but we shall see.

 

[rbernie]

This would *seem* to be a big step in getting the GCA '68 'prohibited persons' issue back on the front burner. At least I'd like to hope so.

 

[gc70]

Here is Tyler v Hillsdale County Sheriff's Department.

 

[Ranger Roberts]

This would *seem* to be a big step in getting the GCA '68 'prohibited persons' issue back on the front burner. At least I'd like to hope so.

I would as well. The mental health system in this country needs a complete overhaul as it is. But more importantly people are unjustly committed, and it's fairly common. I see it most often in domestic cases. X and Y are going thru tough times. They argue. X calls the authorities and says Y is suicidal. Y gets involuntarily committed. Boom. Say goodbye to Y's gun rights. It's really a shame.

Don't take what I said the wrong way. There are plenty of cases where a commitment is necessary. I don't think the Adam Lanza's of the world need to be running around with anything more deadly than safety scissors. But stripping the rights of our citizens because of antiquated laws and a failing system is a slippery slope that we want to stay off of.

 

[MedWheeler]

I agree with Ranger Roberts. Having spent decades in EMS and law enforcement here in Florida, I've seen scads of abuse of the state's "Baker Act", which allows a physician or LEO to order the involuntary placement of a person into a MH facility pretty much on mere words.

Once was ordered to transport an eighteen-year old girl from a doctor's office to such a facility. Weeks earlier, she'd been in a car accident that fractured her spine, and required a cervical "halo" to maintain it while it healed. Her school prom was coming up and, at a checkup in which she'd really hoped to have it removed, she was told it needed to stay on a few more weeks.

(An example of the spinal/cervical halo can be seen here: http://meangirlsandthepopulistmovement.weebly.com/reginas-brace.html )

Upset at the idea of showing up at prom with it, or skipping it altogether, she made a comment to the effect of "I can't live with this thing anymore; I could just die!"

Boom! Instant loss of freedom, and potentially of civil rights.

 

[Spats McGee]

While certainly interesting, this isn't a blanket "that law is unconstitutional." It's an "as applied" challenge, not a facial challenge. It's also worth noting that the court said that *if* the gov't declines to file an answer, *then* the district court should enter a finding of unconstitutionality. It may or may not be over.

 

[Frank Ettin]

This thread well illustrates the proposition that one can not rely fully on news articles on legal subjects. If one wants to understand what is going on, one must do some research and read the primary sources.

There's a link to the court's opinion in post 4. People really need to read the opinion carefully and understand it. It is not a simple matter of a court finding a law "unconstitutional."

In fact, in Tyler the Sixth Circuit, says (Tyler v Hillsdale County Sheriff's Department, Sixth Circuit, No. 13-1876, Slip Op at 28):

We have no trouble concluding that § 922(g)(4), which prohibits possession of firearms by individuals “adjudicated as a mental defective” or who have “been committed to a mental institution,” furthers compelling interests...

But the sticking point for the Sixth Circuit was the absence, in Tyler's case, of a way for him to seek relief from that disability.

It's a long opinion, but it gives some insight into how courts will likely analyze Second Amendment issues. So it's worth spending some time on it.

...The mental health system in this country needs a complete overhaul as it is....

Whether or to what extent that might be true, this case really has nothing to do with that subject. Tyler is really about classes of persons prohibited from possessing firearms and the significance of a process for relief from such disabilities. That is an important subject, but its focus is not the mental health system.

 

[Ranger Roberts]

Tyler is really about classes of persons prohibited from possessing firearms and the significance of a process for relief from such disabilities. That is an important subject, but its focus is not the mental health system.

Forgive my ignorance Frank, but will this impact decisions in other states or just the state in which the decision was made? I would assume (probably incorrectly) that a lawyer would be able to use this case to argue his case in any other state.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...will this impact decisions in other states or just the state in which the decision was made?...

First, as to the issues of law necessarily decided to reach a decision in Tyler, it is binding precedent in the States in the Sixth Circuit. Those States are Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee.

The reasoning in Tyler might be persuasive to courts dealing with similar matters in other Circuits, but those courts are not bound by Tyler.

BTW, Gene Volokh has a good article out on Tyler.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I read the opinion and I am impressed.

I think strict scrutiny of those overly broad laws will play a big part in wiping out most of the infringements on the 2A.

I will consider the Second Amendment not with any standing here for the sake of the following discussion.

It's obvious that Congress can create finely detailed law such as Obama Care, yet when it comes to guns, whether lazy or aiming to prohibit ownership by as many people as they can, they seem to like the application of a single word or phrase that will cover(or create) an entire class of people rather than go into the necessary details to include, and protect us from, only those people that the law has been advertised to protect us from. I'm referring to the word "felon" where the phrase "violent felon" would, by far, narrow the class of prohibited people to those who actually are a danger.

To limit that class of people to only cover violent felons would necessitate the definition of a violent felony, and that definition would of necessity be subject to strict scrutiny - lest picking your nose in public could be on the list because it might gross out someone.

Now, back to the Second Amendment having standing, any violent person who cannot be trusted out in society needs to be either locked up, institutionalized, subject to 100% guardianship, or executed. (Liberals may have a different opinion.)

Woody

 

[Sebastian the Ibis]

Tyler v. Hillsdale County Sheriff's Dept. (6th Cir.)

The United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has given us a wonderful Christmas present. Namely, it just determined that any infringement upon the RTKBA is subject to strict scrutiny (the highest level). This is a nice step forward as the government will be held to the highest standard possible when it tries to show that a law is a permissible infringement on the RTKBA.

Tyler involves 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4). Specifically, the statute provides:

It shall be unlawful for any person . . . who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution . . . to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

As explained by the Sixth Circuit: "Twenty-eight years ago, Clifford Charles Tyler was involuntarily committed for less than one month after allegedly undergoing an emotionally devastating divorce. Consequently, he can never possess a firearm." The Sixth Circuit, found that 922(g)(4) was unconstitutional with respect to Mr. Tyler because there was no evidence he presently suffered a mental defect or was otherwise a danger. As such, 922(g)(4) was not narrowly tailored as it was required to be under a strict scrutiny analysis.

For those of us who were not previously involuntarily committed, this is still an important RTKBA case, since it holds that (at least in the Sixth Circuit) any law infringing the Second Amendment is subject to the same strict scrutiny.

A copy of the opinion is available here:http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/14a0296p-06.pdf

 

[Arizona_Mike]

No one is debating if the RKBA is an individual right.
No one is debating if it is a right subject to a rational basis test.
The current debate is over when to apply strict scrutiny and when to apply intermediate scrutiny. As someone who has been very involved in this discussion on-line since about 1993 I can't help pause and reflect on how far we have come!

This decision strikes me as very sound. As with the First Amendment, the level of scrutiny depends on how close the regulation touches core rights.

The logic of this ruling seems impeccable.

At issue here is only § 922(g)(4)’s prohibition on possession by persons previously committed to a mental institution. Not all previously institutionalized persons are mentally ill at a later time, so the law is, at least somewhat, overbroad. But is it impermissibly so? . . . is § 922(g)(4)’s net too wide? Are previously institutionalized persons sufficiently dangerous, as a class, that it is permissible to deprive permanently all such persons of the Second Amendment right to bear arms? It is a difficult question but one that we need not answer in the first instance. Congress has already determined that the class of individuals previously committed to a mental institution is not so dangerous that all members must be permanently deprived of firearms. Congress created a relief-from-disabilities program . . . (decision goes on to talk about the original unfunded Federal relief program and the 2008 state-based program)

The existence of statutory relief in Federal law is evidence that the law itself did not intent for everyone ever committed to be permanently excluded, thus the court does not even have to examine the question to resolve this case. For individuals who have no relief program available to them, the prohibition fails the over-broadness case.

Mike