In the first legal ruling of its type, a federal appeals court in Cincinnati on Thursday deemed unconstitutional a federal law that kept a Michigan man who was briefly committed to a mental institution decades ago from owning a gun.
A three-judge panel of the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that the federal ban on gun ownership for anyone who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution” violated the Second Amendment rights of Clifford Charles Tyler, a 73-year-old Hillsdale County man.
“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,” wrote Judge Danny Boggs, an appointee of President Reagan, for the panel.
Luke McCarthy, Mr. Tyler’s lawyer, called the ruling “a forceful decision to protect Second Amendment rights,” and said he hoped it had “a significant impact on the jurisprudence in the area of gun-rights.”
According to Adam Winkler, a Second Amendment expert and law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, the ruling could give momentum to the gun-rights movement. “I wouldn’t be surprised to see legal challenges to other parts of the [federal gun] law now,” he said.
Mr. Winkler also said the ruling could prompt Republicans in Congress to move to set up a new “relief from disabilities” program that would allow people to prove they’re fit to own guns.
Wow--I hadn't seen this before. Great news!
ReplyDelete“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,” wrote Judge Danny Boggs, an appointee of President Reagan, for the panel.
Precisely, your honor.
This ruling actually makes very good sense. I grew up in a time when felons lost their rights permanently, and mental illness was something that was also forever and the stigma followed you for the rest of your life.
ReplyDeleteWe now have laws passed where felons automatically regain their rights for many offenses. And many forms of mental illness are easily treatable
If we are to treat mental illness as something treatable, than it stands to reason that there should be a process to regain those rights when the illness is successfully treated.
I wouldn't have a problem with individual cases being adjudicated one by one. But the danger is in throwing the baby out with the bathwater - the law preventing people who have been involuntarily committed from owning guns is a good one in spite of the rare cases of people like this guy who have recovered completely.
DeleteAs I said below: Set up a procedure for people like this to get their rights restored and you'll greatly reduce the risk to the baby.
Delete"But the danger is in throwing the baby out with the bathwater - the law preventing people who have been involuntarily committed from owning guns is a good one in spite of the rare cases of people like this guy who have recovered completely."
DeleteYou raise an interesting question Mike. That being, is it indeed rare to be completely recovered to the same point as this man was?
I'll see what I can find?
Sounds like this judge just might understand what individual rights are. Good for him and Mr Tyler..
ReplyDelete"In other words, wrote Judge Boggs: “[W]hether Tyler may exercise his right to bear arms depends on whether his state of residence has chosen to accept the carrot of federal grant money and has implemented a relief program. . . . An individual’s ability to exercise a fundamental right necessary to our system of ordered liberty cannot turn on such a distinction.”
MBIAC.....
Maybe this will be the path to fixing California’s 5150 code regarding gun ownership. This is where anyone admitted for a 5150 evaluation is barred from owning a gun for five years- regardless of the outcome of the evaluation. Yes, that’s right, passing a mental health screening test is reason for disarmament in the Brady’s number one state for gun control. And you wonder why we have trust issues.
ReplyDeleteAnd you wonder why we have trust issues.
DeleteWatch out, TS--"trust issues" probably sounds enough like "mental illness" to Mikeb that he'll declare you an "unfit gun owner."
"Mr. Winkler also said the ruling could prompt Republicans in Congress to move to set up a new “relief from disabilities” program that would allow people to prove they’re fit to own guns."
ReplyDeleteThat would be a good response to this case. I've not read the whole thing yet, but it looks like the ruling is that the law is unconstitutional in its application to this man. Similarly situated people can use this to go for similar rulings, though it would make sense for Congress to amend the law and set up a system that doesn't require a federal lawsuit to restore rights.
Not only would setting up such a system help those who have been successfully treated, but it would also help prevent the courts from striking the statute as a whole if they were to get tired of constantly having to hear cases to find it unconstitutional as applied to every affected individual. Such a ruling is unlikely in the near future, but the court could eventually get tired of hearing such cases and decide that Congress has had long enough to act, and so they will strike down the law to light a fire under their asses so that they pass a new one with the appropriate provisions.