world
Federal Appeals Court Allows As-Applied Challenge to Firearm Ban for Former Mental Patients
The Seventh Circuit ruled that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) cannot automatically bar gun possession by individuals previously committed to mental institutions if they are no longer mentally ill or dangerous. The decision reverses a district court dismissal and remands the case for further factual findings.
thegatewaypundit.comAudio version
Tap play to generate a narrated version.
Developing·Limited corroboration so far. This page will refresh as more sources emerge.
A federal appeals court held that a lifetime federal firearms prohibition for anyone previously committed to a mental institution may violate the Second Amendment when applied to individuals who are no longer mentally ill. Rose. The decision, written by Judge Frank Easterbrook and joined by Judges Thomas Kirsch and Doris Pryor, addressed the case of Jonathan Rose, who was involuntarily committed in Indiana in September 2009 and released in January 2010.
Rose purchased firearms in 2022.
Some purchases succeeded while others were blocked due to database mismatches. In 2023 he was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) for possessing guns after a prior commitment and under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) for stating on forms that he had never been committed.
The district court dismissed the § 922(g)(4) counts, finding the statute unconstitutional as applied to someone no longer mentally ill. The government appealed.
The appeals court noted that Supreme Court decisions in Bruen, Rahimi, Hemani, and Wolford require current dangerousness for disarmament. It found that § 922(g)(4) applies based on past commitment regardless of present mental state. The opinion stated that historical laws disarmed individuals only during active mental illness or commitment, not permanently after recovery.
It also observed that 32 states, including Indiana, allow restoration of rights through a court process.
“Our tradition of firearm regulation allows the Government to disarm individuals who present a credible threat to the physical safety of others." The court observed that the record contains no evidence of Rose's current mental condition. It noted he receives Social Security disability benefits for a mental condition and has not reported any improvement to the agency. The appeals court reversed the district court's dismissal of the indictment counts and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing on whether Rose remains mentally ill or dangerous.”
