Fourth Circuit weighs firearm rights for those previously committed to mental institutions 

RICHMOND, Va. (CN) — A Fourth Circuit panel heard from a West Virginia man Thursday who argues a law preventing those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution from owning a gun violates the Second Amendment.

James Gould, who experienced four involuntary stints in a mental institution, told the three-judge panel that the provision from the Gun Control Act of 1968 that bars those like him from owning firearms is facially unconstitutional.

Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Albert Diaz, a Barack Obama appointee, questioned whether an as-applied challenge is a better vehicle for Gould. Unlike in an as-applied challenge, where the judges consider the specifics of the challenger’s case, to successfully challenge a law on its face the challenger must show that it is unconstitutional in all applications.

“You seem to be toggling back and forth between an as-applied and facial challenge,” Diaz told public defender Lex Coleman, representing Gould. “The question is, is this statute in its most extreme or most favorable application by the government constitutional, notwithstanding that there might be nuances."

Gould claims the sweeping prohibition doesn’t allow for the possibility that those involuntarily committed can recover from their mental illness.

“That someone is deprived of a gun while they’re under a commitment order and in a mental hospital, well, that makes plenty of sense,” Coleman said. “That order doesn’t end until someone is deemed to no longer be a danger to themselves and the community, and yet we are depriving them lifelong.”

U.S. Circuit Judge Toby Heytens, a President Joe Biden appointee, pointed out that if medical professionals knew their determination would mean the patient is entitled to own a firearm when released, they might come to a different conclusion.

“It strikes me as almost impossible to imagine that the people who decided to release John Hinckley did not take into a fact that it would be illegal for him to have a gun after he was released,” Heytens said.

A West Virginia-based federal judge likened Gould to Hinckley, who spent over three decades involuntarily committed for his attempted assassination of then-President Ronald Reagan in 1981, in hisopinion dismissing Gould’s constitutional challenge.

Heytens, like Diaz, wondered if the statute is better examined on a case-to-case basis. Heytens brought up a hypothetical where a person is involuntarily committed as an intoxicated college student but then spends the rest of their life as an upstanding citizen.

“There probably are some people who might have some pretty compelling as-applied challenges,” Heytens said. “It’s not clear though why there’s no one that this statute could be constitutionally applied to."

Coleman said the statute wrongfully presumes those who have spent time in an institution as permanently dangerous. Coleman pointed to founding-era laws that allowed the government to take guns from those excessively intoxicated temporarily.

“It is the mental state at the time of the committment that makes them dangerous,” Coleman said. “It’s the structure of the statute and how it defines the disability that makes it unfairly inapplicable.”

Diaz asked the government about the goal of the statute.

“I’m certainly not a doctor, but my understanding of mental illness is it’s something you confront over the course of your lifetime,” Diaz said. “Does the presumption only apply to those who are at the moment of time a danger to themselves or others? Or does it apply simply to the label of suffering under a mental illness? Because if that’s the case, I suspect there would be a number of people in this courtroom who might be judged unable to have a gun."

Government attorney Gabriel Price answered that 33 states allow those previously involuntarily committed to petition a court to regain their Second Amendment right. Diaz asked if it’s problematic under the Second Amendment for a petitioner to prove himself not dangerous. Price said the nation has a history of disarming those considered hazardous.

Heytens asked whether someone’s status as a previously involuntarily committed person is the best way to judge dangerousness.

“The fact that you’ve been adjudicated mentally incompetent and your competence hasn’t been restored seems like probably a pretty good proxy for dangerousness,” Heytens said. “The fact that you’ve ever been involuntarily committed in your life? How good of a proxy for dangerousness is that."

Price agreed that, in some instances, a person may never experience a mental episode rising to the level of needing to be committed again. Still, the facial challenge fails if even one person rises to that level again.

A Fourth Circuit panel, in an opinion penned by Heytens, upheld the facial constitutionality of the Gun Control Act’s provision criminalizing gun ownership for those who’ve committed a felony inU.S. v. Canada on Dec. 6. The court reasoned that whether they consider the country’s history of disarming dangerous people or the Supreme Court’s repeated mention that the Second Amendment is protected only for law-abiding citizens, it comes to the same conclusion that the felon-in-possession law can, at least sometimes, be constitutionally applied.

U.S. Circuit Judge DeAndrea Gist Benjamin, another Biden appointee, rounded out the panel. The government declined to comment on the case.

“Gould is a case of first impression, which I appreciated the panel’s willingness to hear,” Coleman said in an email. “Regardless of the outcome, it should be a well-reasoned opinion concerning an important Second Amendment issue.”