In a decision issued by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday, the court found that it was unconstitutional to strip an individual of his 2nd Amendment rights when he had been involuntarily committed for less than a month after a devastating divorce some 28 years ago.
This is a major victory for 2nd Amendment litigation, as the 6th Circuit also found that strict scrutiny applies. These same issues I raised regarding Pennsylvania’s Mental Health and Procedures Act (MHPA) before the Superior Court in Keyes, but which the Superior Court rejected. This now provides support for invalidating state and federal firearm disabilities in the Commonwealth, as a result of an isolated involuntary mental health commitment.
If you are prohibited because of a mental health commitment and wish to discuss your options, contact us today by email or phone – 888-313-0416!
Like this:
Like Loading...
Related
Published by Joshua Prince, Esq.
With our 2nd Amendment rights being attacked at both the Federal and State level, and the ATF (Burea of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives) trying to close down FFLs (Federal Firearms Licensees) for minor infractions while making FFLs the scapegoat when the ATF's records are inaccurate, I want to take this opportunity to introduce myself. I am one of only a handful of attorneys across the US that practices in the niche area of law known as firearms law. I decided to concentrate my legal practice on firearms law not only because I am a shooter and firearms enthusiast, but also to ensure that our inalienable Right to Keep and Bear Arms is never encroached upon.
I handle cases at the Federal and State level for both FFLs and individuals. At the federal and state levels for individuals, I actively defend the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution and Section 21 of the PA Constitution, as well as, help individuals with:
- License to Carry Firearms Denials;
- Challenges to Erroneous PICS Denials;
- Relief from Firearms Disabilities;
- Estate Planning Advice;
- Gun/NFA Trusts; and
- 42 USC 1983 Actions for Deprivation of Civil Rights
At both the state and federal levels, I represent FFLs and SOTs throughout Pennsylvania and the US regarding:
- ATF Compliance Inspections;
- Warning Letters and Hearings;
- FFL Revocations;
- Corporate Structure Advice
- Indoor/Outdoor Range Implementation; and
- Forfeiture Proceedings
In following my love for firearms and firearms law, I have taught several Continuing Legal Education (CLE) seminars on Firearms in Estates and Trusts and Firearms Law 101 for several Bar Associations, including Berks, Cumberland, and Dauphin Counties. I also planned and taught several Firearms in Estates CLE classes for the Pennsylvania Bar Institute (PBI).
While at Widener Law School, I was a member of the Widener Law Journal. I wrote an article on the Inaccuracy of the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR). I also had an article published on Fee Disputes in Workers Compensation cases in the Widener Law Journal, Volume 18, No. 2.
You can often find me posting on several internet forums, including Subguns, Uzitalk, AR15, and PAFOA. I also hold PA Firearms Law classes for local ranges to inform the public on the firearm laws of the Commonwealth.
Following in my father's footsteps, I am also a Board member for the Pottstown Police Athletic League (PAL).
View all posts by Joshua Prince, Esq.
Prince Law Offices Blog 
Can you elaborate on the implications of strict scrutiny being applied? Does that application have implications outside the 6th circuit?
LikeLike
There are, generally, three levels of review/scrutiny: rational, intermediate/heightened and strict. Under rational, the Government almost always wins, because the law only need be rationally related to a government interest. However, the Supreme Court in Heller did declare that rational scrutiny was not appropriate. Strict scrutiny is generally applied to all fundamental rights; however, the US Supreme Court has yet to declare that strict scrutiny is the appropriate level of review in the context of the 2nd Amendment. Generally speaking, under strict scrutiny, most laws are found unconstitutional, if challenged, as the analysis focuses on whether the challenged law furthers “a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” Hence, many anti-gun entities have tried arguing that the 2nd Amendment level of review should be heightened scrutiny, because the analysis focuses on whether the challenged law is “substantially related to an important governmental objective.”
Although this decision is not binding on courts outside of the 6th Circuit, it is very persuasive and sets the stage for a circuit split, requiring the US Supreme Court to decide the appropriate level of review.
LikeLike
Awesome. Thanks.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Welcome to Daniel Ray Richardson's Home on the Web.
LikeLike