Fourth Circuit upholds gun ban for those previously committed to mental institutions

RICHMOND, Va. (CN) — A Fourth Circuit panel delved into the history of regulating the mentally ill on Tuesday to affirm the constitutionality of firearm bans on those previously committed to mental institutions.

“History shows that legislatures had the authority, consistent with the understanding of the individual right to keep and bear arms, to disarm categories of people based on a belief that the class posed a threat of dangerousness,” Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Albert Diaz said. “And when combined with the historical treatment of those who suffered from mental illness, we perceive an unambiguous history and tradition of disarming and incarcerating those whose illness made them a danger to themselves or others.”

James Gould, a West Virginian who experienced four involuntary stints in a mental institution, argued the provision from the Gun Control Act of 1968 that bars those like him from owning firearms runs afoul of the Second Amendment. The panel rejected the facial challenge, ruling the provision is consistent with a tradition of disarming individuals who pose a danger.

“Mental illness is a reason why someone may be deemed to be a threat to themselves or others,” Diaz said. “The underlying societal problem, however, is preventing violence by those found to pose an increased risk of danger to the community or themselves.”

Gould’s decision to attack the provision on its face rather than as applied to him left him with the difficult task of showing that it is unconstitutional in all applications. Gould claimed the sweeping prohibition doesn’t allow for the possibility that those involuntarily committed can recover from their mental illness.

Diaz addressed the argument by explaining that 33 states, including West Virginia, have processes in place to receive relief from the ban if the person can demonstrate that they will not be a danger to public safety.

In pointing to a history of regulating the rights of the mentally ill, Diaz did acknowledge the difficulty in defining mental illness.

“Is it meant to capture all who’ve ever been prescribed an antidepressant? What about those who, at some point in their lives, have been diagnosed with depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or any one of scores of discrete conditions?” Diaz asked. “And how severe must the mental illness have been to be denied the protections of the Second Amendment? Difficulties abound.”

Diaz also acknowledged that the discourse surrounding mental health has changed drastically since the country’s founding.

“Whether our forefathers recognized it or not, the treatment of mental illnesses calls for a nuanced approach, and those who suffered from them at the founding and beyond deserved more compassion — and less stigma — than they received,” Diaz said.

Despite these complications, the panel still found the government has historically disarmed the mentally ill to prevent violence by those found to pose an increased risk of danger. Under the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen , courts must find a historical analog when analyzing contemporary gun control regulations.

Diaz highlighted local communities’ roles during colonial times in caring for the mentally ill. In the 1600s, a Pennsylvania community constructed a small house for confining Erik Cornelissen after his father, Jan, complained that Erik was “bereft of his natural senses” and that he couldn’t afford to maintain him. Connecticut built its first correctional facility in the 1720s to house those with mental illness whose family or friends couldn’t care for them, along with criminals.

The Fourth Circuit has documented in other cases an extensive history of government categorically disarming what legislators consider dangerous people, including in a case concerning the Second Amendment rights of those with domestic violence convictions.

During the colonial period, those legislatures categorically barred from possessing firearms included racial and religious minorities.

“At the outset, we note that some of the historical laws disarming categories of people based on a determination of dangerousness would (thankfully) flunk constitutional analysis today on other grounds,” Diaz said. “We analyze them not to endorse their offensive aims, but to show that, at the founding, categorical disarmament of groups of people was permissible and consistent with the contemporary understanding of the Second Amendment.”

U.S. Circuit Court Judges Toby Heytens and DeAndrea Gist Benjamin, both Joe Biden appointees, joined Diaz in the ruling.

Public defender Lex Coleman, representing Gould, said in a statement: “Section 922(g)(4)’s involuntary commitment clause permanently disarms otherwise law-abiding citizens, even in their homes for self-defense. The court’s finding the statute burdens Second Amendment conduct is certainly welcome. Yet its reliance on historical regulation of generalized ‘dangerousness’ is disappointing given Justice Thomas’ ‘dangerous person’ discussion in Rahimi . The court has also validated a burden-shifting structure similar to New York’s ’may issue’ gun-permit regime found unconstitutional by Bruen . So this case still presents important Second Amendment issues, such that the Supreme Court should grant Mr. Gould’s forthcoming cert petition.”