Breaking: Federal Gun Law Unconstitutional

For the first time since Washington, DC’s firearma’s ban was tossed out in 2008, a federal gun law has been ruled unconstitutional.

In 1986, Charles Clifford Tyler spent a month in a mental health care institution, and as a result he’s been banned from firearm ownership ever since. When he tried to purchase a gun for his own protection, he was arrested and charged with a felony.

Now, the law that kept Tyler from freely exercising his constitutional rights has been thrown out by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinatti, OH. The three judges voted unanimously to restore Tyler’s rights as an American citizen.

via Breaking: Federal Gun Law Unconstitutional.

I keep seeing this case reported, and virtually every time, it makes the same mistake this particular article makes.

The court didn’t rule that Tyler had to be allowed to possess or purchase a firearm.

Tyler was prohibited from possessing or purchasing a firearm, as a result of his commitment to a mental health facility.

That’s a pretty reasonable restriction in keeping withe 2nd Amendment.

The issue was that there was no mechanism by which Tyler could appeal to the state for reinstatement of his civil rights. Absent a review on the state’s power, the 2nd Amendment rights of many could be arbitrarily denied. Here the court simply said that a method of review must be constituted.

6 thoughts on “Breaking: Federal Gun Law Unconstitutional”

  1. Neither federal nor state governments should have the authority to strip constitutional rights from an entire class of citizens. The government should be required to prove justification on a case by case basis and the bar should be set very high indeed.

    1. Well, setting a standard that people committed to mental institutions are prohibited is reasonable. The important thing is, as the court notes, an appeal process for restoration of rights must be available.

      And I don’t think it’s accurate to say “an entire class of citizens” as the commitment process is on an individual basis.

    2. I disagree. I get your point, and I’m not advocating that loonies be armed and cut loose, but there should be a judicial process with the specific aim of stripping a constitutional right.

      The commitment process may or may not be a legal process. Some jurisdictions choose to bar gun ownership for those even tangentially exposed to the mental health system.

      Since we’re talking constitution here, it should be very hard to bar gun ownership; imo every bit as hard as to bar first amendment rights. The “easy button” of passing a law is the wrong course. We are sovereign citizens. The government should have to bring specific complaints against the individual and prove their case in an open judicial forum.

    3. Shaun,

      Agreed. What would be the effect of an administrative hearing from health professionals to take away 4th Amendment, 5th Amendment, or 6th Amendment rights? Be deemed by the State to fit into a category of one type or another (Schumer’s “violent extremists” category? Words he used to describe the NRA.) and you no longer have the right to trial by jury, or protection against unreasonable search and seizure, or self incrimination…. There would be a strong and rightful outcry.

      No, in the denial of ANY liberties, a judicial process should be a requirement, complete with appeals process, rules of evidence, etc.

  2. This incompetent government is only capable of “easy button” fixes. The Federal Government ignores the sovereign right of both citizens and states because both citizens and states fail to assert these rights. We are now at the point where the Congress fails to assert its right to control the Executive. The Republic is finished. Perhaps the citizens of the next Republic will have the courage to assert their sovereign rights. It is a courage instilled by acts such as wintering over at Valley Forge. That hasn’t happened for a very long time. Based upon what has recently taken place, their decedents do not deserve the legacy. They are more suited to be ruled by a sovereign who prefers to winter over in Hawaii.

Comments are closed.