Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.3
Site Design by Sekimori

« Shaking my head... | Main | Antigun PSA encourages gun theft, other offenses »

Major 6th Circuit case today!

Posted by David Hardy · 18 December 2014 10:38 AM

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 | December 18, 2014 2:41 PM | Reply

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.

Archer | December 18, 2014 3:16 PM | Reply

@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?

DJ9 | December 19, 2014 1:52 AM | Reply

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.

Leave a comment