Firearms Owners Against Crime
Institute for Legal, Legislative and Educational Action
Institute for Legal, Legislative and Educational Action
A Somerset man is suing the commonwealth on grounds that Pennsylvania's Firearms Disqualification Statute is unconstitutional.
In a filing made Thursday in federal court at the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, lawyers acting on behalf of this man and another plaintiff allege that state law violates the 14th Amendment. Both men were listed as anonymous “John Does” because of sensitive, personal information contained in the suit.
“I would love to have my right to be able to possess and own a firearm restored,” the Somerset man told the Daily American.
At issue in the suit — which has drawn the attention of the National Rifle Association — is whether the commonwealth should able to bar individuals for life from possessing, using, controlling, selling, transferring or manufacturing firearms if the person is recommended for an evaluation under Section 302 of the Mental Health Procedures Act.
The Somerset man's situation is that, at age 16, he was suffering from depression brought on by bullying and a relationship break-up. His mother, according to the suit, took him to Somerset Hospital in September of 2011 because she feared he might harm himself. A doctor at the hospital recommended that he be committed under Section 302, but the mother took him home instead.
The man, now 21, thought the episode was behind him until he went to purchase a .22-caliber gun last fall.
Not only was he told he could not buy the gun when the gun shop employee ran his information through the Pennsylvania Instant Check System, but he was also charged by state police with falsifying information for checking “no” when asked whether he was ever involuntarily committed for mental health.
Those charges were eventually dismissed. Still, the man said he wants his right to bear arms restored so that, when he has children one day, he can teach them to safely use a gun and hunt.
“I would like to be able to give them the (experiences) my father gave me,” he said.
Section 302 of the Mental Health Procedures Act allows for a person to be involuntary committed for mental health evaluations of up to 120 hours. A person given mandatory evaluation under this act, according to the suit, is not given notice, a neutral arbiter, an opportunity to make an oral presentation, a means of presenting evidence, an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and respond to evidence, the right to representation by counsel or a decision based on the record complete with reasoning for the result.
Attorney Jonathan Goldstein — who is handling the case on behalf of the plaintiffs — said that, because of the factors mentioned in the previous paragraph, individuals barred from gun ownership for a Section 302 are being robbed of due process guaranteed under the 14th Amendment.
“Today, as the law stands, they are permanently deprived (of gun ownership),” he said. “No other right is extinguished in this way.”
The Hatfield-based attorney added that he and his clients have the will and desire to “litigate this to conclusion.” His aim is to remove this provision from Pennsylvania law so that everyone barred from gun ownership via Section 302 has his and her rights restored.
He likened the existing law to a provision that would have a person losing his or her right to vote for being charged — but not convicted — of a crime.
“It's not right, it's unfair and it's illegal,” he said.
The second plaintiff in the suit was taken to the emergency room at Grand View Hospital in Sellersville Aug. 17, 2011, by a friend. He was drunk and uncooperative with hospital staff, so he was placed in a locked room from 3 a.m. to noon.
Since that time, the suit states, he has been to rehab, and remains sober and employed. He hopes to buy a gun for self-defense, but cannot because of how the law is written.
The lawsuit notes that a hearing and other due process procedures are initiated in cases where the mental health commitment is advised beyond the initial 120-hour period. This, however, did not apply in the cases of these two plaintiffs, who were either released without commitment or released within the 120-hour window.
Goldstein argues that the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of protecting both the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment and that individuals cannot have their rights curtailed without due process of law.
Amy Hunter — media liaison for the NRA — said her organization is interested in the case because Pennsylvanians are stripped of their rights without a chance to even defend themselves.
“That’s unacceptable. American citizens cannot be forever stripped of fundamental, constitutionally protected rights without due process,” she said, noting that the NRA is providing support as requested by the plaintiffs and their attorney.
“As far as our role goes – we’re really just facilitating whatever we can and helping out. We think this is a really important issue.”
Defendants in the suit are Gov. Tom Wolf, Attorney Gen. Bruce R. Beemer, Pennsylvania State Police Commissioner Col. Tyree V. Blocker and the state police force in general.
A spokesman for the governor did not return a phone call seeking comment prior to press deadline.