Prohibited Due to “Distant” Mental Illness or Commitments, Found Unconstitutional

[skydve76]

I have a question and I am ignorant so help me out.



For someone who is banned from owning firearms due to a mental health commitment, how does this case affect these people now (or the laws that prohibit firearm ownership).

My question is in the context of a permanent ban based on some mental health issue that is "distant" (in time) however one would define that. I understand if someone is currently having issues that is different. I am not sure how this affects other states or if it is just the state it was in. It appears to be a federal court.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...it-mental-health-gun-ban-is-unconstitutional/

http://www.guns.com/2014/12/19/fede...-mental-hospital-from-buying-gun-struck-down/

48 page ruling (I am still reading it and not going to pretend to completely understand it)

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/14a0296p-06.pdf


In this gentleman's case his state did not have a "set aside" program. Im not sure if that is part of the condition for it being unconstitutional or not.

The case REMANDS it back to district so I am not sure exactly what that means in terms of the impact this has.

A quote on Page 46:
"Tyler’s complaint validly states a claim for a violation of the Second Amendment. The
government’s interest in keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill is not sufficiently
related to depriving the mentally healthy, who had a distant episode of commitment, of their
constitutional rights"

 

[MachIVshooter]

I don't think anyone is going to be able to answer your question satisfactorily. It's one ruling by an inferior court, doesn't set precedent for the entire country or nullify the disqualification of question F on form 4473.

It's a step in the right direction, but it is important to understand that this:


Because the government has not met its burden, we conclude that the Second Amendment as understood in 1791 extended to at least some individuals previously committed to mental institutions.

means the lower court's opinion does not extend to all persons adjudicated or involuntarily committed.

Also, this particular case is done. With a favorable ruling from the 6th circuit, it will not be appealed to SCOTUS. If there is another case that has an unfavorable outcome which does go all the way up, SCOTUS may reference and even be influenced by the 6th district's decision, but unless SCOTUS makes the ruling, this case only applies to the plaintiff at this time.

 

[skydve76]

Hmm, I thought it would atleast impact anyone under the authority of that court. So is what you are saying, if someone in the same state was denied for the same/similar reasons, they would have to go (potentially) up to the appeals court to get relief?

Thanks for your reply.

 

[MachIVshooter]

So is what you are saying, if someone in the same state was denied for the same/similar reasons, they would have to go (potentially) up to the appeals court to get relief?

They may have a better shot at getting a reversal by citing the 6th circuit ruling when appealing their own denial, but it would be on a case-by-case basis. The ruling doesn't nullify the prohibition, or even declare that the prohibition is entirely unconstitutional, but only that the court found it unconstitutional in this particular case, with the summary opinion that there are some other cases in which it would also be unconstitutional. As such, it will probably only work to help people with a similar commitment in the past for a similarly acute condition.

 

[Frank Ettin]

We discussed this case, Tyler v Hillsdale County Sheriff's Department, Sixth Circuit, No. 13-1876 (2014), in this thread.

Basically, in that decision the Sixth Circuit said (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.

However, that's all moot now. The decision cited above was a decision of a three judge panel. But the Sixth Circuit granted a re-hearing en banc (by the full panel of judges), and the grant of an en banc re-hearing vacates (nullifies) the panel decision.

It appears that oral arguments were scheduled for October of last year. As far as I can tell there's nothing further yet on the case.

 

[skydve76]

Frank once again you are a wealth of information. I understand now why it has had little impact. If you get bored feel free to respond to my next post/rant. I take this topic fairly seriously and think the level of ignorance in this topic is the a big problem.

I do want to point out, based on the previous thread, that under no circumstances should anyone equate criminal and mental health prohibitions.

I am guessing, this ruling caused a stir since as someone pointed out the logic could apply to anything that prohibits firearms ownership. I wish I could write the judges, because I feel its ok to limit the scope of the ruling to mental health denials alone.

A criminal case has these elements present:
An Arrest
A charge(s)
Legal representation
An arraignment
A plea hearing
Possibly a plea deal
A trial
Possibly a trial buy jury
An appeals process (EVERY state or court has this).
Evidence is scrutinized and the reasonable doubt clause is there.
Due Process.


This process can take months at least. There are many chances for things to change, charges to be lessened, or even dropped. The person being charged knows for certain what is happening to him or her and has plenty of time to think it through for a defense.

As someone pointed out in the previous thread, which I can attest to personally, one can be "committed" temporarily, albeit a legal adjudication, in less than 24 hours.

While some evidence is needed, words alone are suffice. Im sure many people have said something stupid at one time especially when young or under extreme duress. All it comes down to is circumstance.

The thought is that if someone may hurt themselves, even if based on words alone, it's safer to hold them and have them see a counselor on a OP basis for a bit to ensure they are ok.

However the legal ramifications are absolutely crazy. Because this process happens so fast, usually while one is under duress, one doesn't even realize what is happening until its too late.

I don't think its right to compare this process to the criminal process, nor suggest any modification of it should affect criminal proceedings.

One thing I find interesting is that here there is a federal law (922), which can be interpreted differently by each state. This creates a level of inconsistency and tends to make things circumstantial. This is true for the criminal side, but the mental health side is highly subjective with hardly any standardization on proceedings. Heck in the Tyler case he was committed by a probate board? Wow.

The solution IMO is to have boards specifically deny gun rights for a lifetime ban or no ban. While I understand a ban should be in place during treatment, there is no reason that ban should not be lifted after someone has complied with treatment. This would give boards more power in creating a continuum instead of a black and white situation.

If you are committed to an institution by the federal government (VA), 922 specifically says that once released from treatment, the disability no longer applies. I have no idea why it would not have to be the same on a state level.

In my state an OP treatment order, which everyone gets if they go into voluntary observation, is enough to submit them to NICS for denials.

I know several people in my area who's parents, girlfriends, wife, or themselves presented them to the emergency room due to duress and suicidal ideation. Standard procedure is to have them observed for 48 hours, then have them see a counselor (OP commitment). Taking firearms rights away is disgusting, and does nothing more than punish and deter people from seeking treatment. Note, I never said the cops had to drag them down there, they presented themselves willingly.

 

[NickEllis]

Thanks skydve76. Helpful orientation here on the subject matter.

 

[skydve76]

Thank you for reading. I think getting information out there will help the situation. Unfortunately, anyone who presented themselves for treatment is instantly related to Seung-Hui Cho (VA Tech Massacre). A vile monster who committed mass murder is now be compared to people who at one time were under duress and sought help.

I guess some of those people also have black hair and are Asian, so perhaps that should be enough in itself?

The only thing insane and in need of commitment is the stigma and ignorance of this situation, even by respectable people.