Posted on 09/25/2016 4:39:16 AM PDT by marktwain
In May of 2012, Clifford Charles Tyler filed a suit to regain his Second Amendment rights, which had been improperly withheld from him when he attempted to buy a firearm. When he attempted to purchase a firearm, he had been denied because he had been involuntarily committed 28 years before. The District Court dismissed the lawsuit on January 29, 2013. Tyler appealed to the Sixth Circuit. A three judge panel of the Sixth Circuit ruled the provision unconstitutional in December of 2014.
The Obama administration found the case important enough that they asked for, and got, an en banc review.
The entire Sixth Circuit has reheard the case. On Friday, 15 September, 2016, 10 of the Circuit's 15 judges concurred and upheld the initial ruling. . From courthousenews.com:
CINCINNATI (CN) — A person involuntarily committed to a mental-health facility is not permanently barred from owning a gun, a divided en banc Sixth Circuit ruled Thursday.From the decision(pdf):
The Cincinnati-based appeals court overturned a lower court decision and ruled that "prior involuntary commitment is not coextensive with current mental illness," but that "intermediate scrutiny" should be applied on a case-by-case basis.
The en banc decision comes nearly a year after oral arguments in Tyler v. Hillsdale County Sheriff's Department, et al., with 10 of the Sixth Circuit judges concurring with the lead opinion written by Judge Julia Smith Gibbons.
The district court dismissed Tyler’s suit for failure to state a claim, reasoning that Heller’s statement regarding “presumptively lawful” prohibitions on the mentally ill foreclosed such claims. The court also observed that § 922(g)(4) would survive intermediate scrutiny. Unlike the district court, we do not understand Heller’s pronouncement about presumptively lawful prohibitions to insulate § 922(g)(4) from constitutional scrutiny nor do we believe that on the record as it currently stands the government has carried its burden to show that § 922(g)(4)’s permanent ban is substantially related to the government’s important interests in reducing crime and preventing suicide. Because Tyler’s complaint states a valid claim under the Second Amendment, we reverse and remand.This is an important case that shows that Second Amendment rights are to be treated seriously, and a lifetime ban of a fundamental right is an action that is not to be implemented in a frivolous fashion.
The 2nd ammendment is crystal clear, no one is ever prohibited from owning a firearm, no one ever.
“The 2nd ammendment is crystal clear, no one is ever prohibited from owning a firearm, no one ever.”
I fully agree here and will add, knowing I will likely get flamed, that even convicted felons, after having served their sentence, should not lose their 2nd Amendment rights. In particular, non-violent felons, such as those charged with non-payment of child support.
The Courts have been moving in the direction that non-violent felons should not be permanently barred.
You are correct. Hillary is actively opposed to the rule of law, or any limitation on government power.
The framers could not in a million years fathom the concept of child support, let alone felony non payment of child support and to envision such as grounds to strip 2nd Amendment rights would floor them.
It might sound fair on the face, but the transfer of funds to a fiduciary, trustee or guardian without any requirement that the funds be spent for their intended purpose nor penalty for outright theft and misuse of those funds (new rims for the new boyfriend’s car) all justified by depriving a father of his God-given and constitutional right to the care, custody and nurture of his own children which cannot be disturbed absent neglect, abuse or abandonment.
So many incremental encroachments against our God-given and constitutionally reiterated rights that we seem to accept these underlying encroachments as normal especially when used to argue in favor of further encroachments.
Child support is one of the more egregious. Imagine if the IRS said you had to pay taxes based on how much you were capable of making, rather than what you actually make. This is how child support is calculated. It is called “imputed income.” The end result is often 100% of your income leaving you nothing upon which to live.
Then immediately suspend your driver’s license so you cannot get to work or look for work and while your arrears increase, suspend your hunting and fishing licenses so you cannot legally catch or hunt food to eat. Then they suspend your passport so you cannot flee the country that is oppressing you to such a degree over a financial obligation that wouldn’t have existed in the first place if they had not initially violated your rights to the care, custody and nurture of your own children.
Soon the feds will charge you and you will do up to 10 years in prison and when you get out, still owe every cent and more (with onerous interest) and lose your right to own a gun with which to defend yourself (not that you really want to after they have destroyed your life this bad.)
Its all for the children, though.
Wish California would get the 2nd amendment and recognize it for visiting Americans.
The Family Court racket is nothing more than a wealth redistribution scheme. It is social justice at it’s “best” and the legal system at it’s very worst.
“Child support” is a very lucrative business for state governments.
“Courts starting to treat the Second Amendment as a fundamental right.”
If they were serious about that, we would be hearing the term, “Strict Scrutiny.”
This is good stuff. People do recover. I’ve been waiting for the antis to decide any drug (or even alcohol) treatment — or even a single Alcoholics Anonymous meeting — brands you an ‘addict’ for life, even if you recover.
This ruling helps trend against that.
Sometimes I wonder if my childlessness is in fact a blessing.
Agreed.
Though it seems the Feral Government is eager to restore voting rights.
You’d enjoy “Childless Couples” by Redd Foxx.
Agreed.
Owning is not necessarily possessing if one is involuntarily committed.
+1
It should put an end to the plans to deny veterans rights on the excuse they suffer or might have suffered from PTSD.
it would seem this would also affect the veterans and seniors who have had their 2a rights removed ?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.