Tyler v. Hillsdale County Sheriff's Department

[Tom Servo]

This one just came out of the 6th Circuit [pdf].

This case presents an important issue of first impression in the federal courts: whether a prohibition on the possession of firearms by a person “who has been committed to a mental institution,” 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4), violates the Second Amendment. Twenty-eight years ago, Clifford Charles Tyler was involuntarily committed for less than one month after allegedly undergoing an emotionally devastating divorce. Consequently, he can never possess a firearm. Tyler filed suit in federal court, seeking a declaratory judgment that § 922(g)(4) is unconstitutional as applied to him. The district court dismissed Tyler’s suit for failure to state a claim. Because Tyler’s complaint validly states a violation of the Second Amendment, we reverse and remand.

The three-judge panel found that the prohibition was not "narrowly tailored to the government’s interests in public safety and suicide prevention." This is the first time since Heller that a Circuit court has invalidated a federal gun statute as unconstitutional.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I hope the plaintiff prevails. If he does win at the district level, we can be sure the government will appeal. Should be interesting.

I have long thought that the negatives attached to this far outweigh the benefit of "keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people." Especially with the drive today to report anything and everything to NICS as a disqualifier, IMHO this law is keeping large numbers of people from getting the help they need. Not to make a pun out of it, in today's regulatory climate a veteran would have to be crazy to seek help for PTSD from the VA. That's virtually a guarantee of losing your 2A rights for the rest of your life.

And then there's the fact that this is like the "do not fly" list. Once your name goes on the list, it's impossible to get your name OFF the list. Not all emotional problems are life-long issues.

 

[NJgunowner]

To be honest I take issue with the ban on felons as well. Someone who did their time for a non violent offense and has been working a good job for 10 years and owns a house should have their rights restored. We're supposed to be bringing them back into society, not shutting them out of it.

Same with the whole mental institution thing. Something that happened 20 years ago once and has long since been deemed not dangerous shouldn't be an end to someones constitutional rights.

 

[Spats McGee]

The 6th took an approach (procedurally speaking) that I hadn't seen before. However, let's bear in mind that this was an "as applied" challenge, not a facial challenge. It's also worth noting that the court said that *if* the gov't declines to file an answer, *then* the district court should enter a finding of unconstitutionality. It may or may not be over.

 

[speedrrracer]

Also interesting it appears to be that the court specifically concluded that strict scrutiny was generally the proper test to apply to gun restrictions.

 

[Frank Ettin]

It's really important to read the decision. It is not a simple matter of a court finding a law "unconstitutional."

In fact, in Tyler the Sixth Circuit, says (Tyler v Hillsdale County Sheriff's Department, Sixth Circuit, No. 13-1876, Slip Op at 28):

We have no trouble concluding that § 922(g)(4), which prohibits possession of firearms by individuals “adjudicated as a mental defective” or who have “been committed to a mental institution,” furthers compelling interests...

But the sticking point for the Sixth Circuit was the absence, in Tyler's case, of a way for him to seek relief from that disability.

It's a long opinion, but it gives some insight into how courts will likely analyze Second Amendment issues. So it's worth spending some time on it.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Gene Volokh has a good article out on Tyler.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The 6th took an approach (procedurally speaking) that I hadn't seen before. However, let's bear in mind that this was an "as applied" challenge, not a facial challenge. It's also worth noting that the court said that *if* the gov't declines to file an answer, *then* the district court should enter a finding of unconstitutionality. It may or may not be over.

But the court limited the government's response to rebutting Tyler's facts. The guy has been living a normal life for more than 20 years with no threats to anyone and no indications of suicidal tendencies. Presumably Tyler has facts (as in records and/or fact witnesses) to support his position. If I'm understanding the narrative correctly, those facts are already in evidence, so the appeal court has essentially tasked the government not with arguing the law (again), but rather with refuting the factual record. If they can't do that, the trial court would then, it appears, be directed to find the law unconstitutional.

 

[speedrrracer]

The government at oral argument stated that it currently has no reason to dispute that Tyler is a non-dangerous individual. On remand, the government may, if it chooses, file an answer to Tyler’s complaint to contest his factual allegations.

(emphasis mine)

I don't understand this one. So the govt has already stipulated that Tyler is non-dangerous, and is not mentally ill. But the court says the govt can go back and contest the factual allegations....what would they gain? They've already given up all the ground, haven't they?

If you have a citizen who is non-prohibited and not mentally ill, on what grounds can you possibly eliminate their 2A rights? Can the govt go back and say, "We take back what we said!" like children in a playground?

I don't understand...it's as if the court has said the govt can go do something which is futile.

 

[Frank Ettin]

....If I'm understanding the narrative correctly, those facts are already in evidence, so the appeal court has essentially tasked the government not with arguing the law (again), but rather with refuting the factual record. If they can't do that, the trial court would then, it appears, be directed to find the law unconstitutional.

Details.

What the Sixth Circuit said exactly was (Slip Op at 46, emphasis added):

...Tyler’s complaint validly states a claim for a violation ofthe Second Amendment. The government’s interest in keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill is not sufficiently related to depriving the mentally healthy, who had a distant episode of commitment, of their constitutional rights.⁴³ The government at oral argument stated that it currently has no reason to dispute that Tyler is a non-dangerous individual. On remand, the government may, if it chooses, file an answer to Tyler’s complaint to contest his factual allegations. If it declines to do so, the district court should enter a declaration of unconstitutionality as to § 922(g)(4)’s application to Tyler.⁴⁴ We REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

In other words, Tyler claimed that, as a matter of fact, he is no longer a danger to himself or others. Unless the government chooses to contest that claim, and successfully shows otherwise, it would not be constitutional to apply 18 USC 922(g)(4) to bar Tyler from having a gun.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

If you have a citizen who is non-prohibited and not mentally ill, on what grounds can you possibly eliminate their 2A rights? Can the govt go back and say, "We take back what we said!" like children in a playground?

"But it's the LAAAAAWWWW! WAAAAAHHH!"

 

[Frank Ettin]

...So the govt has already stipulated that Tyler is non-dangerous, and is not mentally ill....

No, the government did not.

According to the Sixth Circuit (Slip Op, at 46, emphasis added):

...The government at oral argument stated that it currently has no reason to dispute that Tyler is a non-dangerous individual....

That is not the same as stipulating (agreeing) that Tyler is okay.

The government merely, at this particular procedural stage of the litigation, didn't yet have grounds to challenge Tyler's assertion that he is mentally healthy. And that would most likely be because at this stage of the litigation Tyler's current condition had not yet been placed in issue. And therefore at this stage in the litigation the government had no reason to inquire into and consider Tyler's current condition.

Tyler sued asking for a declaration that 18 USC 922(g)(4) is unconstitutional as applied to him. His suit was dismissed, on the motion of the government, for failure to state a claim. He appealed.

So the case came to the Sixth Circuit without there having been any discovery, any inquiry into the facts, or any litigation of the merits. The question before the Sixth Circuit was merely whether Tyler could state a claim to which the government could be required to answer and litigate.

 

[speedrrracer]

Thanks for the breakdown, Frank. Is this correct to say:

So the govt agreed that it did not dispute, at this time, the truth of Tyler's claim to mental health. But the court has given them a chance to reconsider that agreement, and if so, they have to then litigate the truth of Tyler's claim, and prove him mentally unhealthy in order to win?

 

[Frank Ettin]

Thanks for the breakdown, Frank. Is this correct to say:

So the govt agreed that it did not dispute, at this time, the truth of Tyler's claim to mental health. But the court has given them a chance to reconsider that agreement,...

No, it's not. What is correct is what the Sixth Circuit reported:

...The government at oral argument stated that it currently has no reason to dispute that Tyler is a non-dangerous individual....

Precision in the use of language is very important. The government saying that at present it doesn't have the information to dispute Tyler's claim is not the same as the government does not dispute Tyler's claim. The government is, in effect, reserving the right to investigate and dispute Tyler's claim.

Thanks for the breakdown, Frank. Is this correct to say:

...they [the government] have to then litigate the truth of Tyler's claim, and prove him mentally unhealthy in order to win?

Almost. It's not clear from my reading that the government's exact burden of proof/persuasion has been decided. But at least the government would need to make a showing that based on Tyler's current psychiatric condition the government's compelling interest in 18 USC 922(g)(4) is furthered by not permitting him to possess a gun.

 

[KyJim]

FWIW --- All three judges on the panel were appointed by Republican presidents. Two are from Kentucky (Boggs and Siler) and the third from Tennessee (Gibbons).

Tyler sued asking for a declaration that 18 USC 922(g)(4) is unconstitutional as applied to him. His suit was dismissed, on the motion of the government, for failure to state a claim. He appealed.

To further explain this statement from Frank --- When a complaint is filed, a defendant typically alleges that the complaint fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted. That means that even if all the facts stated in the complaint are true there is no legal basis for providing any sort of relief. The defendant normally makes this assertion as part of his answer but this is one of a handful of assertions that can be made in a motion to dismiss before the defendant files an answer.

That's what the government did here and the district court agreed that even if all the facts alleged in the complaint are true, it could not grant relief because the Second Amendment did not extend to persons in the plaintiff's position. That's why the case had to be remanded; for the government to investigate and consider whether any of the facts alleged in the complaint could be disputed. The government did not have to do this initially because it took the position the facts didn't matter.

Even if the government does not specifically find anything disputing the claim made in the complaint, it will probably state it does not have any knowledge about the allegations and therefore denies them. The plaintiff can then submit affidavits or declarations and/or documents and to support a motion for summary judgment.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Jim, thank you. That was a great explanation of the procedural doings I gave short shrift to. I'm glad you came along to flesh things out.

 

[speedrrracer]

Even if the government does not specifically find anything disputing the claim made in the complaint, it will probably state it does not have any knowledge about the allegations and therefore denies them. The plaintiff can then submit affidavits or declarations and/or documents and to support a motion for summary judgment.

I think a lot of important stuff was crammed into too few words here, and as a result I'm missing a lot, and it surely also exposes my lack of understanding of the issue as a whole.

So if the govt doesn't understand the laws of physics, it can deny them? If you don't have knowledge of something, how can you say yes or no to it?

The initial allegation was that the govt was denying Tyler his 2A rights, then it was that the lower court got their decision wrong. The 6th said yes, they got it wrong, the original complaint of a 2A violation is correct here. So the govt can say it has no knowledge of any 2A violation, after the 6th just found it guilty of a 2A violation?

And now it's up to Tyler to submit affidavits as to his...what? He hasn't been accused of anything, he just won the case...the govt has no interest in preventing him from having a gun unless they can prove / show / support / or whatever is unclear to Frank that Tyler isn't mentally healthy and therefore falls under the "compelling interest in preventing him from having a gun" rubric.

 

[Al Norris]

And now it's up to Tyler to submit affidavits as to his...what?

The way the law is worded, it is assumed that once you have been found to be mentally unstable, that you can never be found to be stable in the future. Hence the lifetime ban.

The plaintiff will be able to file papers disputing the basis of the law. Essentially, the plaintiff will be showing that, yes indeed, one can recover from mental illness.

The government will be forced to file papers that will purport to claim, "once unstable, always unstable." Something that I believe it cannot show to any degree of fact.

 

[Doc Intrepid]

But does it need to be shown?

"The way the law is worded, it is assumed that once you have been found to be mentally unstable, that you can never be found to be stable in the future. Hence the lifetime ban.

The plaintiff will be able to file papers disputing the basis of the law. Essentially, the plaintiff will be showing that, yes indeed, one can recover from mental illness.

The government will be forced to file papers that will purport to claim, "once unstable, always unstable." Something that I believe it cannot show to any degree of fact."

Mr. Norris, a quick question if I may...

In Washington (state) the state is currently continuing to incarcerate pedophiles and other sexual offenders who have completed serving their sentences under the doctrine that 'if they were released they would be likely to re-offend', and therefore they continue to pose a danger to the public. While I am no fan of pedophiles, this does appear to apply state punishment to citizens for what they 'might' do in the future, rather than for any offense they have been duly convicted of.

In effect the state is saying "once a dangerous pedophile, always a dangerous pedophile". To the best of my knowledge, unless the State is capable of precognition this cannot be shown with any degree of fact.

If it can work for the State to do so in the case of pedophiles, what is to (legally) prevent the State from adopting the exact same position with respect to those formerly afflicted with a mental illness?

 

[speedrrracer]

The way the law is worded, it is assumed that once you have been found to be mentally unstable, that you can never be found to be stable in the future. Hence the lifetime ban.

Does this refer to the law that was just struck down as unconstitutional, at least as applied to Tyler?

The plaintiff will be able to file papers disputing the basis of the law. Essentially, the plaintiff will be showing that, yes indeed, one can recover from mental illness.

That's interesting. Why would Tyler be required to dispute the basis of an unconstitutional law, or are we talking about some other law?