Iowa’s law restricting the gun rights of people involuntarily committed due to mental health issues is constitutional, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled Friday.
It is the first major gun rights case to come to court since 2022, when Iowa passed a constitutional amendment specifically protecting the right to bear arms and requiring courts to create laws limiting that right to the highest legal standard.
The standard is known as strict supervision and means that any law that infringes on a “fundamental right” must be carefully tailored to meet a “compelling” government interest.
The lawsuit involved a Pottawattamie County teen, identified as NS, who was ordered to be evaluated and treated twice in 2006 and 2008. At the time, family members alleged that NS had threatened themselves and others and damaged property, including punching holes in walls. Doctors diagnosed him with bipolar disorder and other conditions.
According to court records, the first order resulted in outpatient treatment for several months, while the second was denied after a doctor said NS’s problems were “behavioral” and not related to mental health.
From 2019: Involuntary hospitalization protects patients but can be slow
Because of these commitments, NS, now an adult, is not allowed to own or carry firearms unless the judge determines that he is not likely to pose a threat to public safety. In 2022, after being denied a concealed carry permit, NS petitioned the court to restore his rights. After another psychiatric evaluation, the court refused, noting that despite his childhood diagnoses, NS denied any history of mental health problems or substance abuse and had withheld relevant information from his recent examiner.
Under Iowa law, NS may re-petition the court every two years.
The court confirms the denial of gun rights
NS argued on appeal that the court ruled incorrectly. But he also argued that Iowa’s gun rights restoration law violates Article 1, Section 1A of the amended Iowa Constitution because it puts the burden of proof on the petitioner, not the state, to show that he remains a threat to the community.
Judge Thomas D. Waterman listens during oral arguments in Summit Carbon Solutions, LLC v. Kent Kasischke on Tuesday, Oct. 8, 2024, in the historic Iowa Supreme Court courtroom at the Iowa State Capitol.
In Friday’s ruling, Judge Thomas Waterman wrote that despite NS’s progress over the past two decades, including marriage, parenthood of two children and steady employment, the court had reasonable concerns about his credibility in refusing to restore his gun rights .
On the constitutional issue, Waterman wrote, there are no precedents for strict scrutiny that shifts the burden of proof between parties, and the state clearly has a compelling interest in keeping guns out of unsafe hands.
“Rather, the Second Amendment is satisfied by a remedial procedure in which the previously committed individual will have to pass a threshold showing that he can safely own a gun today,” and “the government can present rebuttal evidence if it so chooses.” ” Waterman wrote, citing a 2016 federal appellate ruling.
Lawyers for NS did not immediately respond to messages requesting comment.
Split court upholds law 2-2-3
Joining Waterman in his opinion was Chief Justice Susan Christensen. Two justices, Christopher McDonald and Dana Oxley, largely agreed with Waterman, but wrote separately that Amendment 1A doesn’t even apply. McDonald noted that NS is not actually allowed to own a firearm under federal law, and only has the right to petition for reinstatement because the federal government allows states to create processes to do so. That means the Iowa law is actually an expansion, not a restriction, of gun rights, and is not subject to Amendment 1A, McDonald wrote.
The other three justices disagreed, arguing that the Iowa law does not meet the strict scrutiny standard because it requires petitioners to convince the court that they are no longer dangerous, rather than asking the state to prove that this is still the case.
“The point of strict scrutiny is to place the burden of justification on the party that favors the restriction. … If that is the case, it is simply preposterous and wrong to force the party under the restriction to prove that the restriction no longer exists. is part of it and not the other way around,” Judge Matthew McDermott wrote for the dissenters.
Gun rights group responds
Richard Rogers, a board member of the Iowa Firearms Coalition, said in a statement that both the majority and minority opinions raised interesting points about the constitutionality of Iowa’s law, but that he was pleased to see the court affirm a path for people with previous involuntary commitments to restore their gun rights.
“IFC was instrumental in the 2010 passage of Iowa Code 724.31, which for the first time provided an opportunity for an Iowan to regain firearm rights denied by federal law on the basis of mental health,” Rogers wrote. “The statute allows an individual to petition for restoration of rights every two years. Numerous Iowans have done so successfully and IFC is pleased that today’s Court ruling keeps the important appeals process intact for future petitioners.”
Rogers noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has also affirmed that gun rights can be temporarily denied to people classified as dangerous, and that he expects the court to uphold such bans even if it rejects what he believes are overly broad laws, which do not taking away civil rights. violent criminals and others.
William Morris covers courts for the Des Moines Register. He can be reached at wrmorris2@registermedia.com or 715-573-8166.
This article originally appeared in the Des Moines Register: Iowa Supreme Court says process to regain gun rights is constitutional
