Each year, more than 8,000 people are convicted for unlawful possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). About 90% of those cases arose from gun possession by a felon. Firearm prosecutions are reportedly “the third most common federal offense.” Such prosecutions are even more common in some districts, including the Middle District of … Continue Reading
We’ve previously reported on the Tyler case, in which the Sixth Circuit became the first circuit to apply strict scrutiny to a firearms restriction (and to hold it unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiff). Tyler was then vacated for rehearing en banc, and has already been argued before the Sixth Circuit en banc. With the Sixth Circuit … Continue Reading
The Sixth Circuit sat en banc yesterday to hear oral argument in Tyler v. Hillsdale County Sheriff’s Dep’t regarding whether or not a federal provision prohibiting the possession of a firearm by a person who has been confined to a mental institution violates the Second Amendment under Heller. The original panel had sustained the plaintiff’s Second … Continue Reading
The Sixth Circuit has voted to rehear en banc its recent decision in Tyler v. Hillsdale Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, in which it became the first court of appeals to sustain a Second Amendment challenge to a federal firearms regulation since Heller was decided. The parties have been directed to file supplemental briefs. Our analysis of … Continue Reading
This is the second in a series of posts discussing Tyler v. Hillsdale, the first case since Heller to strike down a federal gun law. The first post is here. One of the four “potential limiting principles” the Court offered for its Second Amendment analysis, is that Section 922(g)(4)—which permanently bars those previously involuntarily committed … Continue Reading
In Tyler v. Hillsdale Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, a case sure to draw attention nationwide, the Sixth Circuit held today that “’a prohibition on the possession of firearms by a person “who has been committed to a mental institution,’ . . . violates the Second Amendment.” The court held that the the plaintiff, who “[t]wenty-eight years … Continue Reading
