Another Civil Rights Victory

[GaryS]

Very technical (to me) and probably narrow in it's application. Or maybe not, we might now find out.

The short story. A person who was involuntarily committed to a mental institution 28 years ago can not be permanently denied his right to possess firearms.

From the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, case from Michigan

This case presents an important issue of first impression in the federal courts: whether a prohibition on the possession of firearms by a person "who has been committed to a mental institution," 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4), violates the Second Amendment. 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. Tyler filed suit in federal court, seeking a declaratory judgment that § 922(g)(4) is unconstitutional as applied to him. The district court dismissed Tyler's suit for failure to state a claim. Because Tyler's complaint validly states a violation of the Second Amendment, we reverse and remand….

Tyler v. Hillsdale County Sheriff's Dep't (6th Cir. Dec. 18, 2014):

 

[CO_Kid]

I think that in this case it's justified. A divorce after his wife ran away with another man, emptied the bank accounts, etc.

I would feel very different if he was hospitalized because of homicidal threats towards the wife or the other guy.

 

[GaryS]

Which is why there is supposed to be an appeals process. These cases should be decided on a case by case basis, dependent on the facts. The issue here is not whether or not Tyler should have had his disability removed. The issue that MI denied him a process through which to make the appeal.

Courts of Appeal do not relitigate the facts (trial de novo), they review and rule on the law.

It's possible that if there were an appeals process in place, that court (or board) could rule that Tyler still posed a threat to himself or others and that the disability should stand.

In his case, I don't think that's likely, but in other cases such a court or board could decide that the person needs to remain prohibited.

I think that in this case it's justified. A divorce after his wife ran away with another man, emptied the bank accounts, etc.

I would feel very different if he was hospitalized because of homicidal threats towards the wife or the other guy.

 

[Rustyt1953]

Here is another link.
US appeals court deems gun law unconstitutional | Fox News