« Shaking my head... | Main | Antigun PSA encourages gun theft, other offenses »
Major 6th Circuit case today!
Tyler v. Hillsdale County -- as-applied challenge to prohibition against those who have a mental commitment.
Majority goes with strict scrutiny. Lengthy discussions of various prohibited person categories. Scalia's "presumptively lawful" treated as ambitious, with note that under any heightened scrutiny the law cannot be presumed valid.
Court concludes that statute is not "narrowly tailored" since those with mental commitments can apply for restoration of rights in States that have adopted a regime matching federal requirements (thereby getting grant money), the simple fact that Tyler's State hasn't should not leave him with a lifetime bar. Remanded for trial.
3 Comments | Leave a comment
@DJ9:
Interesting hypothesis. I wouldn't expect it to go anywhere (because ZOMGMACHINEGUN!), but I can see the logical reasoning, and it seems to take a similar line as the ruling.
I could also see this used to challenge some of the Assault Weapon Bans across the country - specifically, the ones that are based on cosmetic appearances or after-market accessories (e.g. vertical forward grips, adjustable stocks, etc.). If this gun with the "scary" feature is banned but the actual operation is identical to this other one that's NOT banned (equating the two sub-classes), and as per Heller a ban on the whole class of guns is unconstitutional, then the ban on "scary" features must also be unconstitutional.
Thoughts?
I agree that it would be another good option to pursue, especially in combination with states/localities that allowed grandfathering of older weapons owned before the law took effect (as most did). If the only difference between the firearms in the banned class and the grandfathered class is the production date (before and after some arbitrary cutoff), that would make it even harder to successfully defend these "banned features" laws.
We've always know that these laws are essentially arbitrary and stupid; we just have to figure a way to get the point across with solid legal explanation and support. Rulings like the one detailed above should help quite a bit.
An interesting and well-written ruling.
Perhaps some of the logic applied here (government obviously didn't mean for this to be a permanent condition, as they constructed a means of relief from it), could be twisted a bit and used to attack the current freeze on the production of machineguns approved for civilian non-police use. Obviously, civilian owned machineguns are not so dangerous as to be totally prohibited, as current law allows for the possession and use of machineguns made and introduced into commerce before the ban took effect. This could be construed as a sign that the 1986 ban on new machineguns is without basis in fact: If they were too dangerous to possess at all, then possession should have been totally banned, so if we allow possession of older automatic weapons, how can we legally prevent a ban on new ones? Especially considering new weapons would likely have newer safety mechanisms and parts less likely to break and cause unsafe conditions during use.