Citation

Pendel A. Touro Law Rev. 2022; 38(1): 423-451.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2022, Touro College School of Law)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) imposes a lifetime ban on those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution from purchasing, or possessing a firearm, regardless of an extended passage of time or a finding that the individual is unlikely to pose a danger to themselves or the public. Three circuits have created a split concerning the constitutionality of this statute. The Third Circuit held in Beers v. Attorney General United States that those involuntarily committed were outside of the scope of the Second Amendment; therefore, the § 922(g)(4)'s categorical ban is constitutional. Next, the Ninth Circuit in Mai v. United States assumed, without deciding, that these same individuals are inside of the scope of the Second Amendment but held § 922(g)(4) constitutional under intermediate scrutiny as applied to those whose commitments were long ago. Finally, the Sixth Circuit held in Tyler v. Hillsdale City Sheriff's Department, that individuals such as Tyler, who had been involuntarily committed into a mental institution, were within the Second Amendment's scope. The Sixth Circuit held § 922(g)(4) unconstitutional under intermediate scrutiny...

... In 2020, over 43,000 people were killed by firearms, and year after year rates are increasing exponentially.214 With the country's tumultuous relationship involving firearm possession,215 it is important to understand the limits and implications of § 922(g)(4). These boundaries are essential to determine who may possess guns, where they may store them, and when they may use them. As three circuits have reached three different conclusions regarding the constitutionality of § 922(g)(4), the need to address this issue at the
highest level is essential. The Supreme Court must reach an ultimate decision of whether involuntary commitment to a mental institution is enough to trigger a lifelong ban on firearm ownership and possession. For the reasons expounded throughout this Note, it is likely that the Supreme Court's holding should align with the Ninth Circuit.

Language: en