US appeals court deems gun law unconstitutional

[The Legion]

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.

 

 

Tyler attempted to buy a gun and was denied on the grounds that he had been committed to a mental institution in 1986 after suffering emotional problems stemming from a divorce. He was only in there for a month.

Tyler’s lawyer, Lucas McCarthy, hopes that the ruling would have a “significant impact on the jurisprudence in the area of gun rights.”

The decision is the first by a federal appeals court to rule a federal gun law is unconstitutional since 2008. The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in D.C. vs. Heller struck down the Washington, D.C. ban on firearms ownership.

Federal law bans gun ownership for convicted felons, people under 18, illegal immigrants, drug addicts and those ordered by a court to a mental institution. The law also syas that people must have a chance to prove that their disqualifying disabilities have ended in order to possess a firearm legally.

Since 2008, states have been able to get federal grants to set up “relief from disabilities program,” which was defunded in 1992. Michigan has not set one up, which left Tyler without a way to prove that his so-called “disability” should no longer apply.

“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 Ronald Reagan, for the panel.

 

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

[K191145]

Good deal, one past episode shouldn't exclude someone who is mentally healthy. The more seriously mentally ill may be controlled by medicine and phychaitric care but usually are never completly cured, I believe anyone is capable of having an emotional breakdown if certain bad things happen in their life, they shouldn't be treated like a criminal for the rest of their life.

[battleop]

When I first started reading this I though this was really bad judgment until I saw this was something in his past from almost 30 years ago.    Based on that it's a good ruling.   If you are not currently a mental risk and there is no indication you will become one then there is no reason to prevent you from owning a gun.

 

I'm sure the media will jump on this and only report the first part of this story and forget to include the background.

[monkeylizard]

This is a good step to removing the stigma around mental health. If a person needs professional help, it will be a difficult call to make anyway. Toss in the fact that they'll potentially lose their rights for life and it means some people never get the short-term help they need.

[gun sane]

As the old ad slogan goes, "Sometimes you feel like a nut.....sometimes you don't." 

 

I like that appeals court decision.  In essence, that law says that some frailties of mankind are permanent and have zero chance of recovery, even though doctors turn you loose.   Maybe now they'll give a second look at other damnable offenses that brand you as unfit to protect yourself. 

[midtennchip]

I am reading the case now.  Unfortunately, I have some concerns about this case.  Mainly, the concerns are whether the 6th Circuit properly followed Heller (in fact, it almost looks like the 6th Circuit is asking the SCOTUS to clarify Heller).  My analysis is probably too technical for most people's interest in the case, but I question what the 6th Circuit was doing here.  

 

Specifically, the 6th Circuit states that a prohibition on possession by a mentally ill person is "presumptively lawful," citing directly from Heller.  But then questions the SCOTUS's statement by pointing out conflicting provisions in Heller (the 6th Circuit says "presumptively lawful . . . cannot be correct because . . . [that is] an option Heller forecloses.")  By saying that (and pointing out a discrepancy in Heller), I wonder if the 6th Circuit was inviting the SCOTUS to review this case.

 

The 6th Circuit then backtracks just a little bit, so who knows if this will go to the SCOTUS.  There have been numerous circuits who questioned different aspects of Heller's analysis.  In any event, I think the decision was a good one, but not sure it will hold up.  The basis for the decision was not the facts of the Plaintiff's mental illness (or lack of mental illness).  The entire basis for the decision was the lack of an effective system to restore gun rights to individuals who are no longer mentally ill.  

 

However, that arises ONLY because the federal statute already has in place a mechanism for restoration of rights under 18 U.S.C. section 925.  That mechanism was cut out by Congress when it de-funded that restoration program.  Also, because the state of Michigan did not have a state program for restoration, the relief available under Section 925(c) was effectively unavailable, in violation of the 2nd Amendment.

 

Had the federal law not included the restoration program, or if the program existed and denied Mr. Tyler's appeal, I think this case would have ended differently.  Page 31 of the opinion basically says that the federal law probably would have been constitutional, even if the restoration provision wasn't included.  But because it was included, then the government should have a mechanism in place.  Because it doesn't, the government violated Mr. Tyler's 2nd Amendment rights.

 

So, in short, this is a pretty technical decision that (i) might be overturned by the SCOTUS or (ii) overturned by Congressional action.  We'll see.

 

Opinion is available here:   http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/14a0296p-06.pdf

[bersaguy]

I have been wanting to ask a question on something that relates somewhat to this topic and I would like opinions on it please.

I am going to use Sandy Hook in this scenario. Alan Lanza was declared as having mental issues and apparently there were doctors that had treated him for these issues. His mother also knew that he had mental issues and I am guessing she refuse to accept the fact her some was mentally unstable. Yet knowing he had issues she purchased several firearms and kept them in the home. Evidently she also took his to ranges where they practiced shooting the guns.

 

Also evidently the firearms were not locked up at home wish allowed him to gain access to them, thus upon getting them he proceeded to kill his mother before going to the Sandy Hook  school. Now with this said, what is the opinions in regards to a person knowing a family member living in a house with a mental of a few issues and firearms also being kept in the home? My thought is if they want to have fire arms in the home, as long as those firearms remain under lock and key or combination lock in a top line gun safe they should be allowed to have them. I do believe that the mother of Alan Lanza was in denial and therefore was careless. How does folks here feel about firearms in the home of a family member with mental issues.............Just curious and would like other views....................Curious Mind would like to know???? 

[monkeylizard]

It depends on the mental health problem. Not all lend themselves to some sort of violence towards others or towards the ill person.

[Mike.357]

so crazy people forfeit their right to self defense?

 

Good decision by the court.

[DaveTN]

I have been wanting to ask a question on something that relates somewhat to this topic and I would like opinions on it please.
I am going to use Sandy Hook in this scenario. Alan Lanza was declared as having mental issues and apparently there were doctors that had treated him for these issues. His mother also knew that he had mental issues and I am guessing she refuse to accept the fact her some was mentally unstable. Yet knowing he had issues she purchased several firearms and kept them in the home. Evidently she also took his to ranges where they practiced shooting the guns.
 
Also evidently the firearms were not locked up at home wish allowed him to gain access to them, thus upon getting them he proceeded to kill his mother before going to the Sandy Hook  school. Now with this said, what is the opinions in regards to a person knowing a family member living in a house with a mental of a few issues and firearms also being kept in the home? My thought is if they want to have fire arms in the home, as long as those firearms remain under lock and key or combination lock in a top line gun safe they should be allowed to have them. I do believe that the mother of Alan Lanza was in denial and therefore was careless. How does folks here feel about firearms in the home of a family member with mental issues.............Just curious and would like other views....................Curious Mind would like to know????

I didn’t see anything that implied Adam Lanza’s mother denied he had problems. She didn’t agree with keeping him medicated and said he refused to take the meds.

There was a gun safe in the home. We can only speculate as to whether or not be had regular access; but I’m pretty sure I could make anyone open their safe.

My feelings on this are that a Judge should be able to take away a person right to bear arms if they are deemed a danger; and they should have the right to appeal. Since it doesn’t involve the risk of jail time they don’t have the option of a jury; but they should.

Saying you can’t keep mental cases from owning guns is ridiculous at face value and won’t be upheld.

“Committed to a mental institution” implies it was involuntary. I would like to know what he did to cause that to happen.

[JayC]

Is the current law really protecting us?  What is the cost vs risk of going back to the old method of selling firearms?

 

Crazy people and criminals can still get guns, current gun laws do very little to stop this, but cost law abiding citizens a lot of trouble/money.  False positive rates are more than 70+% in most cases, and the true false position rate it likely even higher than that, probably 90+%.

 

It currently costs 20-25 million dollars to gun owners for every criminal/crazy person convicted for trying to purchase a firearm illegally...  And it's likely that number is much much higher once we look at all the ATF regulatory paperwork manufacturers are forced to complete on every firearm.

 

Why not just get rid of it all and live with a few more incidents of gun crime every year?

 

I didn’t see anything that implied Adam Lanza’s mother denied he had problems. She didn’t agree with keeping him medicated and said he refused to take the meds.

There was a gun safe in the home. We can only speculate as to whether or not be had regular access; but I’m pretty sure I could make anyone open their safe.

My feelings on this are that a Judge should be able to take away a person right to bear arms if they are deemed a danger; and they should have the right to appeal. Since it doesn’t involve the risk of jail time they don’t have the option of a jury; but they should.

Saying you can’t keep mental cases from owning guns is ridiculous at face value and won’t be upheld.

“Committed to a mental institution” implies it was involuntary. I would like to know what he did to cause that to happen.

Edited December 23, 2014 by JayC

[Wheelgunner]

Is the current law really protecting us?
 
Why not just get rid of it all and live with a few more incidents of gun crime every year?

No, the current law is not protecting us. Recent events prove that fact. I would be happy to get rid of it all.

The problem is the liberal majority, which has an irrational fear of firearms and refuses to own them. They believe that their own safety is a politician's concern, not their own. To someone sitting scared and defenseless in front of the TV and keeping their fingers crossed for "hope and change", the thought of ANY increase in crime is a scary proposition.

[Oh Shoot]

It's amazing that any of the Appeals Courts are finding for gun rights in any form. Just was learning today from Rush's show that all but one now has majority Dem appointed makeup. And BHO has 85 more appellate judgeships to fill.

 

- OS

Edited December 24, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[East_TN_Patriot]

The recent focus on the mentally ill is nothing more than the latest effort to find some group of people to blame for our social problems. We have stigmatized mental illness so severely in our society that people are afraid to get treatment and people who have diagnosed mental illness are treated as if they are all potentially dangerous psychotics that need to be on a constant suicide watch. If you get cancer, people rush to your side and offer support. If you are suffering from mental illness, you are ignored and whispered about in hushed tones.

The fact of the matter is that mental illness is no different than other forms of illness. Most people have some form of diagnosable mental illness at least once in their life, some people have chronic mental illness that can easily be treated with medication and/or therapy, and some have very serious mental illness that causes them substantial difficulty living a content and "normal" life. Some types of mental illness are more problematic than others. We know that many members of the military who have served in combat suffer from chronic mental illness, especially PTSD. We also know that many law enforcement officers suffer from PTSD due to the cumulative effects from long-term exposure to job-related stress. Individuals in these professions are typically very hesitant to seek mental health treatment, and as a result, suicide rates in these groups are much higher in comparison to the general public. We have stigmatized mental illness to the point that those who commit their lives to protecting our society are placing themselves at greater risk for mental illness and suicide because they know they risk losing their careers should they seek treatment. I dare say that a good number of TGO members are currently taking some sort of medication for mental health reasons.

The overwhelming majority of people with mental illness are not inherently dangerous to others, but our society - including our lawmakers - has labeled those with mental illness as a group to be viewed with great suspicion and constantly at risk for losing their rights. Something as simple as seeking assistance during a mental health crisis can result in an involuntary hospitalization even if the individual is voluntarily seeking help to get control of their illness before it results in suicidal intent (the question of whether the government should have the authority to forcefully prevent you from taking your own life is another issue altogether). It's time to stop treating a huge group of law-abiding people as if they are potentially mass-murderers simply because a very small number of individuals who appeared to have severe mental illness committed a violent act.

[monkeylizard]

they know they risk losing their careers and their rights should they seek treatment.

 

FIFY

[East_TN_Patriot]

FIFY

Yup. Thanks for that. The fact of the matter is that we have given the government a lot of legal authority to deal in mental health issues, which includes using force to take control of the mentally ill. Speaking from personal experience as a former LEO and someone who has seen the other side as a private citizen, the way we handle mental illness in this country is shameful. When someone is mentally ill, we expect the police to handle it, yet we don't give them any other tools beyond force to take the person into involuntary custody and transport them to a health facility. We don't send the paramedics who have medications and medical training; we send the folks with guns, batons, tasers, and training in use of force. The mentally ill person doesn't get to ride in an ambulance; they get handcuffed, patted down, and transported in the back of a patrol car. Once I called around seeking voluntary treatment when I was dealing with depression caused by a tremendous amount of personal stress and I ended up on the phone with a fellow who encouraged me to go to the ER where they could give me a referral for therapy. When I arrived, I was placed in an empty room, made to put on a paper gown, had all of my personal property taken from me, and told I was not free to leave. When I protested saying I was there for voluntary treatment, they said, "Sorry, but you gave up all of your rights when you said you wanted to kill yourself" and was threatened with law enforcement if I didn't comply. Long story short, I told the guy on the phone I was looking for treatment options because I was dealing with a lot of stress, and I knew from my law enforcement days that it was better to get help before things got so bad that I ended up suicidal or something. That was enough of a statement to have me held for an involuntary evaluation even though I said I wasn't suicidal and voluntarily sought treatment. I was treated like a criminal, plain and simple. Fortunately, I explained all of this to the person assigned to do my evaluation, and they apologized and said they hate how we have a "broken system" and they expect it to get worse with the "Obama-care" law. With mental illness being much like any other major illness, there is the potential for every single person to be labeled as a potential danger and subjected to the force of law that was previously only reserved for law violators. It's a big problem for sure, but one that most people aren't familiar with.