KEARNEY, District Judge.
In legislation enacted in 1968, Congress prohibited persons involuntarily committed for mental illness from possessing a firearm. No one disputes the valid government purpose in ensuring an involuntarily committed person suffering with mental illness cannot possess a firearm. The tougher question arises in the permanency of this prohibition. Congress allows Pennsylvania officials or the Attorney General to grant relief from its statutory prohibition but Pennsylvania has not established a compliant program and Congress has barred funding the Attorney General's ability to administer this process. After evaluating the statute's purpose relating to once involuntarily committed persons, we follow the analytic framework set a year ago by our court of appeals in Binderup and conclude Congress can constitutionally prohibit a person once involuntarily committed from ever possessing a firearm. This is particularly so when Congress provides avenues for relief, albeit not presently available. We are not asked to today to opine on potential claims against Congress for not funding the Attorney General's waiver program or against Pennsylvania for non-compliance with the federal mandate. In the accompanying Order, we grant the Attorney General's Motion to dismiss the once-involuntarily committed person's claim Congress's prohibition is unconstitutional as-applied or deprives him of due process or equal protection under the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments.
Steven Jefferies alleges the United States violates his Second Amendment rights by prohibiting him from possessing a firearm based on his involuntary commitment under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4). He alleges the United States' failure to provide "a reasonable procedure pursuant to which an individual could regain their Second Amendment rights upon demonstrating their current mental and emotional fitness" makes the prohibition overbroad and as-applied to him impermissibly burdens his Second Amendment rights. He alleges the United States also violates his Fifth Amendment right to due process by depriving him of his right to keep and bear arms without pre-deprivation notice and an opportunity to be heard or a post-deprivation proceeding for relief from the prohibition. He lastly alleges an equal protection violation under the Fourteenth Amendment but does not identify similarly situated parties.
We find, as a matter of law, his arguments lack merit under our court of appeals' 2016 holding directing us to not consider the person's rehabilitation since the incident causing the prohibition.
Fifty-two year old Steven Jefferies lives in Montgomery County where he is self-employed as a landscaper.
On October 5, 2001, Mr. Jefferies had an altercation with his former wife because he "believed, rightly or wrongly, [she] was having an affair."
The state court involuntarily committed Mr. Jefferies on October 5, 2001 for a period not to exceed 72 hours. On October 9, 2001, Mr. Jefferies's treating doctors petitioned to continue his involuntary commitment for up to 20 more days of outpatient treatment.
As a result of his involuntary commitment, both Pennsylvania and federal law prohibited Mr. Jefferies from possessing a firearm. A few years after release from his involuntary commitment, Mr. Jefferies petitioned the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas to restore his ability to possess firearms.
Mr. Jefferies began using his firearms.
Mr. Jefferies now sues Attorney General Jefferson Sessions, the Department of Justice and a variety of federal officers and agents along with the United States (together "United States"). Mr. Jefferies asks us to declare 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) and its attendant regulations violate his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection and due process and to permanently enjoin the United States from enforcing § 922(g)(4) against Mr. Jefferies.
The Second Amendment effective December 15, 1791 ensures the Government shall not infringe "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." Our issue is whether the specific language of § 922 (g)(4) enacted in 1968 infringes Mr. Jefferies's Second Amendment right: "It shall be unlawful for any person ... who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution... to ... possess ... any firearm or ammunition..."
The United States moves to dismiss, arguing § 922(g)(4) passes constitutional muster under the Second Amendment because it is substantially related to the furtherance of an important governmental interest of keeping firearms away from mentally ill persons.
Mr. Jefferies argues § 922(g)(4) is unconstitutional as-applied to him because as a "competent individual[] who present[s] no risk of harm to [himself] or others", the statute is an undue burden on his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
The Second Amendment prohibits the infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms."
In Heller, the Supreme Court held a "ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."
Neither the Supreme Court nor our court of appeals has addressed whether prohibiting a previously involuntarily committed individuals from possessing a firearm violates the Second Amendment. But key to our factual analysis, the Supreme Court in Heller cautioned "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
The Supreme Court in Heller did not decide the standard of scrutiny applying to Second Amendment rights because it held the District of Columbia's handgun ban failed under all standards of scrutiny.
Our court of appeals in Marzzarella held the Supreme Court's footnote recognizing Justice Breyer's dissent "correctly notes [the handgun ban] ... would pass rational-basis scrutiny" suggests a heightened standard of scrutiny applies.
The court of appeals in Marzzarella held § 922(k) passed intermediate scrutiny because it served a significant government interest in tracing firearms by serial number and does not burden Second Amendment rights because the court could not "conceive of a lawful purpose for which a person would prefer an unmarked firearms, the burden will almost always fall only on those intending to engage in illicit behavior."
A year later, convicted felon James Barton challenged 18 U.S.C.§ 922(g)(1)'s prohibition on felons possessing a firearm as an "as-applied" unconstitutional infringement on his Second Amendment right.
Our court of appeals' willingness to look beyond the felony to current and rehabilitative
Section 922(g)(1) prohibits individuals convicted of a "crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" from possessing firearms.
Our court of appeals in Binderup first rejected the statutory construction argument holding when Congress made an exception for state law misdemeanors "punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years of less" the use of "punishable by" means "subject to a maximum penalty of."
Our court of appeals then turned to the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1). The court first rejected the argument the Supreme Court's holding in Heller means "any law barring persons with Second Amendment rights from possessing law firearms in the home even for self-defense is per se unconstitutional; that is, no scrutiny is needed."
Our court of appeals found § 922(g)(1) did not "completely eviscerate" Second Amendment rights because individuals had avenues of relief from it. Individuals could regain their rights under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20) if the state expunges their convictions, the state pardons them, or the state restores their civil rights. The court of appeals also cited an avenue for statutory relief where an individual could request the Attorney General lift § 922 prohibitions.
Our court of appeals then turned to the Messrs. Binderup and Suarez's as-applied Second Amendment challenge and its framework to review those challenges. Reviewing Marzzarella and Barton, the court defined "a framework for deciding as-applied challenges to gun regulations."
As directed by our court of appeals in Binderup, we evaluate Marzzarella's two-prong approach by first determining "whether the challenged law imposes a burden on conduct falling within the scope of the Second Amendment's guarantee, and, second, if the "law burdens protected conduct, the proper course is to `evaluate the law under some form of means-end scrutiny.'"
Our court of appeals identified "two hurdles" a challenger must surmount to make an as-applied challenge.
The court of appeals in Binderup then closely examined Messrs. Binderup's and Suarez's disqualifying convictions. Our court of appeals held they proved their crimes were not serious by showing: (1) they are labeled misdemeanors; (2) they lacked a violent element; (3) they received a "minor sentence"; and, (4) there is "no cross-jurisdictional consensus" about the seriousness of their crimes.
Because Binderup is a plurality opinion, our court of appeals offered us guidance to understand the "fractured decision."
As we now turn to Mr. Jefferies's as-applied challenge to a federal prohibition on firearm possession by a person involuntarily committed, we restate the framework:
The United States prohibits Mr. Jefferies from possessing a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) based on his 2001 involuntary commitment. Mr. Jefferies argues the statutory ban of firearm possession under § 922(g)(4) as-applied unconstitutionally infringes his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in defense of hearth and home.
We must determine if § 922(g)(4) prohibiting individuals who were involuntarily committed from possessing a firearm burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment. When declaring the Second Amendment protects the "right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to arms defense of home and hearth", the Supreme Court cautioned its holding "should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by... the mentally ill."
We turn to whether Mr. Jefferies's prohibition is presumptively lawful under the Second Amendment. Congress, through § 922(g)(4), prohibits an individual "who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution" from possessing a firearm.
While our court of appeals has not yet examined the absence of traditional justifications for prohibiting the mentally ill from possessing firearms, other colleagues on the district court have done so. In Simpson v. Sessions, Judge Schmehl examined the lack of specific prohibitions on the mentally ill possessing firearms but found "clear historical evidence that persons prone to violent behavior are outside the scope of Second Amendment protection."
We agree with Judge Schmehl's and Judge Jones's conclusions. The understanding and language of mental illness is amorphous and ever evolving but § 922(g)(4) prohibits individuals from possessing firearms who, because of their mental illness, are a danger to themselves or others. The Code of Federal Regulations supports our conclusion defining "mental defective" to include individuals who are "a danger to [themselves] or to others", who are unable to manage their own affairs, or those found insane or incompetent to stand trial in a criminal proceeding.
Mr. Jefferies must now allege how his involuntary commitment is distinguished from the traditional justifications for excluding individuals from possessing firearms because their involuntary commitment makes them more likely to be a danger to themselves or others. Mr. Jefferies fails as to make a meaningful distinction.
The state court involuntarily committed Mr. Jefferies because he was a danger to himself and others. Mr. Jefferies's former wife asked the state court to involuntary commit him because he attempted suicide.
Mr. Jefferies's treating doctors extended his involuntary commitment under § 303 of the Mental Health Procedures Act. To extend treatment under § 303, Mr. Jefferies's examining physician and facility must apply and the state court must appoint counsel and hold an adversarial proceeding.
Mr. Jefferies offers no evidence distinguishing his commitment for attempting to harm himself from the class of individuals prohibiting from possessing a firearm because their involuntary commitment as a danger to themselves or others renders them more likely to harm themselves or others in the future. Mr. Jefferies attempts, instead, to distinguish his own post-commitment conduct from his conduct which led him be involuntarily committed. He argues the common law right to keep and bear arms did not "exclude from its scope (merely because of a recommitment) individuals like Mr. Jefferies, safe, sane, stable individuals who do not and have not presented a risk [to] themselves [or] others since the time of their commitment."
Two courts in this District reviewing Binderup disagree with Mr. Jefferies and held evidence of individual's post-involuntary commitment mental health is not relevant to his challenge to § 922(g)(4). In Beers v. Lynch, Judge Davis recently dismissed an individual's identical as-applied challenge to § 922(g)(4) finding the individual's "`current fitness' to possess firearms is of no moment" based on Binderup's holding "the passage of time or evidence of rehabilitation" cannot restore an individual's forfeited Second Amendment right.
Mr. Jefferies's counsel, aware of our court of appeals directs we must not consider evidence of rehabilitation or post-deprivation conduct in as-applied challenges to federal prohibitions on firearm possession, argues we should follow the Court of Appeals of the Sixth Circuit where the case law is friendlier for him.
To follow Tyler and examine Mr. Jefferies's post-commitment conduct we would have to ignore our court of appeals' rejection of the "claim that the passage of time or evidence of rehabilitation will restore the Second Amendment rights of people who committed serious crimes."
In a similar vein, Mr. Jefferies's reliance on Keyes is misplaced as it overlooks the intervening governing decision in Binderup. In Keyes, the district court found § 922(g)(4) unconstitutional as-applied to a challenger because he is "no more dangerous than a typical law-abiding citizen" and "not a `continuing threat' to himself."
As Mr. Jefferies cannot overcome the two hurdles to challenging § 922(g)(4) under Barton, we need not consider whether this prohibition can survive intermediate scrutiny.
Mr. Jefferies argues § 922(g)(4) is unconstitutionally overbroad because there is "no reasonable procedure pursuant to which an individual could regain their Second Amendment rights upon demonstrating their current mental and emotional fitness."
Mr. Jefferies's inability to secure relief from § 922(g)(4) to possess firearms again does not render the statute unconstitutional. Our court of appeals held "[t]here is no historical support for the view that the passage of time or evidence of rehabilitation can restore Second Amendment rights that were forfeited."
At the same time, our court of appeals distinguishes § 922(g)(1) as not a complete evisceration because of the statute's "escape hatches" where individuals could regain their rights under § 921(a)(20) if the state expunges their convictions, the state pardons them, the state restores their civil rights, or through the currently unfunded ability for the Attorney General lift § 922 prohibitions.
The Second Amendment does not protect Mr. Jefferies's right to seek relief from § 922(g)(4) because "[t]here is no historical support for the view that the passage of time or evidence of rehabilitation can restore Second Amendment rights that were forfeited."
Even assuming our court of appeals' holding § 922(g)(1) is not per se unconstitutional is based on the "escape hatches" available to a felon challenger, Congress also provides two "escape hatches" from § 922(g)(4). The unfunded avenue to petition for relief from the Attorney General under § 925(c) is theoretically available to Mr. Jefferies just as it was to Messrs. Binderup and Suarez.
In 2008, Congress authorized another avenue to waiver: "a State court, board, commission, or other lawful authority shall grant relief ... [from § 922(g)(4)] ... if the circumstances regarding the disabilities..., and the person's record and reputation, are such that the person will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest..."
Mr. Jefferies cannot presently obtain relief under this 2008 waiver because Pennsylvania has not implemented a relief program meeting Congress's requirements and because Congress withholds appropriations to fund § 925(c).
Our court of appeals did not find Messrs. Binderup and Suarez's inability to receive relief from Pennsylvania through § 921(a)(20) or from the United States through § 925(c) unconstitutional because a remedy to recover lost Second Amendment rights is "legislative grace," not a constitutional right.
Mr. Jefferies alleges the United States violates his Fifth Amendment right to due process in depriving him a right to keep and bear arms without pre-deprivation notice and an opportunity to be heard or a post-deprivation proceeding for relief from the prohibition. The United States move to dismiss this claim and Mr. Jefferies offers no counter-argument in his brief.
To state a claim for procedural due process, Mr. Jefferies must have a constitutional right to process. In Keyes, the challenger alleged the United States deprived him of his Second Amendment rights without due process in prohibiting him from possessing a firearm because of his involuntary commitment without notice and an opportunity to be heard.
The district court found the same rationale applies to a § 922(g)(4) prohibition because "the statute subsection is clear that anyone who has been committed for mental health is subject to it; thus a hearing on whether the plaintiff is still dangerous is not in fact relevant."
The district court in Keyes also addressed the friction between Barton and Bell as Barton seemed to open the door for a felon to challenge a firearm ban based on his post-conviction conduct while Bell held a felon did not require due process before the firearm ban applies because the statute applies the ban to all felons. Our court of appeals' ruling in Binderup resolved this tension by overruling Barton's opening for individuals to challenge the federal firearm prohibition based on their post-deprivation conduct.
Mr. Jefferies alleges the United States' enforcement of § 922(g)(4) violates his equal protection and due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Because Pennsylvania granted Mr. Jefferies relief from the state ban on firearm possession, any due process claim is now moot.
Mr. Jefferies alleges § 922(g)(4) is an "unconstitutionally broad ban" on the class of "individuals who have ever been involuntarily committed."
Mr. Jefferies's allegation is unclear as to who the comparable parties are and how the United States treated them differently. Mr. Jefferies's equal protection allegations can be construed in two ways. If Mr. Jefferies is alleging he is treated differently than other individuals subject to § 922(g)(4) based on their involuntary commitment, his claim fails because he does not allege how the United States applied the ban on possessing firearms differently to him and other individuals who were involuntarily committed.
If Mr. Jefferies is alleging he and other "individuals who have ever been involuntarily committed" are together the class the United States treats differently, we cannot possibly discern the comparable party. We can only assume the comparable parties would be any individual subject to ban on possessing firearms under federal law. Mr. Jefferies's equal protection claim still fails because Mr. Jefferies does not allege how "individuals who have ever been involuntarily committed" are treated differently than other individuals who have been banned from possessing firearms by the United States. Mr. Jefferies's claim also fails because he cannot show how a group of people encompassing every person subject to a federal law banning him or her from possessing firearms are similarly situated "in all relevant aspects."
Mr. Jefferies also references the closed off avenue for relief from § 922(g)(4) provided by § 925(c), however, that avenue of relief applies to all firearm prohibitions and is, similarly, closed off to individuals banned under other sections so he cannot allege differing treatment based on § 925(c).
We dismiss Mr. Jefferies's equal protection claim under the Fourteenth Amendment because he does not allege how the United States treated him differently from a similarly situated party.
We dismiss Mr. Jefferies's as-applied Second Amendment challenge because he fails to distinguish his involuntary commitment for being a danger to himself from the class of individuals Congress prohibited, the class being those involuntarily committed because they are a danger to themselves or others. Mr. Jefferies also fails to state a claim for a Fifth Amendment violation because Mr. Jefferies is not constitutionally entitled to process before the United States subjects him to the prohibition under § 922(g)(4). Mr. Jefferies fails to allege an equal protection claim under the Fourteenth Amendment because he does not allege how the United States
Our Court of Appeals requires us to apply a three-step analysis under a 12(b)(6) motion: (1) "it must `tak[e] note of the elements [the] plaintiff must plead to state a claim;'" (2) "it should identify allegations that, `because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth;'" and, (3) "[w]hen there are well-pleaded factual allegations, [the] court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement for relief." Connelly v. Lane Construction Corp., 809 F.3d 780, 787 (3d Cir. 2016) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 675, 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937).
