The Iowa Supreme Court has upheld a state law restricting gun rights for individuals who were involuntarily committed for mental health treatment, marking a significant test of the state’s recently passed constitutional amendment protecting gun rights. In a 4-3 decision, the court ruled that Iowa Code section 724.31, which outlines a process for restoring firearm rights, does not violate the strict scrutiny standard imposed by the 2022 amendment.
At the center of the case was “N.S.,” a man denied a concealed carry permit due to a 2006 mental health commitment.
As a teenager, N.S. was committed after family members reported threats to harm himself and others. Diagnosed with bipolar disorder and substance abuse issues, N.S. later sought to have his firearm rights restored under the state’s restoration process, which requires proving that the petitioner is no longer a threat to public safety.
The court ruled that the law serves a “compelling state interest” in preventing gun violence and suicides and is “narrowly tailored” to achieve that goal. Justice Thomas Waterman, writing for the majority, emphasized that the process allows individuals to petition every two years to regain their rights, ensuring the restrictions are not permanent for those who can demonstrate they are no longer a danger.
Opponents, including Justice Matthew McDermott in a dissent joined by two other justices, argued that the restoration process unfairly places the burden of proof on the petitioner rather than the state. McDermott contended that strict scrutiny requires the government to justify the restriction, not for the individual to prove their suitability.
Gun rights advocates had hoped the constitutional amendment, which demands the highest level of judicial review for gun laws, would lead to fewer restrictions. However, this decision underscores that even under strict scrutiny, courts may uphold measures aimed at public safety.
The ruling highlights ongoing tensions between individual rights and public safety in gun law debates. The Iowa Firearms Coalition noted that while it supports the restoration process, it will continue advocating for policies that reduce barriers for law-abiding gun owners.
For now, the court’s decision reinforces Iowa’s ability to regulate firearms for individuals with significant mental health histories.
The problem we face in this particular issue is this: modern mental health ‘sciences’ are based in ideology and hooey and not verifiable science. NS could be displaying behaviors typical of many if not most teenagers who are not under strong parenting. Very often kids outgrow this.
Don’t forget Sygmond Freud made his career, protecting pedophiles. Yet he’s the hero of modern psychology. Once you learn that, the “science” becomes all the more dark and disturbing, and explains why there’s so many wackos out there, despite their being under a doctors care…
Wow! You are really convincing……What does your doctor say to you? Do you know anything about real life?
Have you ever looked into his history? If you had, then perhaps you wouldn’t be so condescending.
He knew Freud … personally. Maybe he was one of Freud’s patients.
the rights afforded us in the Constitution and Bill of Rights are individual rights, not public per se, and more weight should be afforded to the individual than the public at large. even convicted criminals can have their rights restored after completing requirements.
it has been 18 years since his denial for a concealed carry permit for being committed for whatever reason. has he had mental health issues since then? if not, give him his permit and stop denying his Second Amendment right.
like john byran says, “freedom is scary, deal with it”.
I can see the “preventing gun violence” aspect of keeping crazy people from having access to firearms but not the “preventing suicides” aspect: ending one’s own life on one’s own terms is a basic individual right and it serves no overwhelming public interest to interfere in it.
“For now, the court’s decision reinforces Iowa’s ability to regulate firearms for individuals with significant mental health histories.”
Who wrote this in Ariel? Who sas NS now has “significant” mental issues?
“The Iowa Firearms Coalition noted that while it supports the restoration process, it will continue advocating for policies that reduce barriers for law-abiding gun owners.” They will continue? Then how about a Petition for a writ of Certiorari with U.S. Supreme Court?
Bipolar disorder is not something that can go away or in my opinion be cured. Over 90 percent of the people doing mass shootings are demonkkkrats. We know just by who they vote for, who and what the support, that they have a screw lose. The way they help these people are with drugs and they do not always work. They can make the situation better but when they get into a position where common sense should rein supreme and they don’t like the decision or outcome, they can go off instantly and you never know what is going to… Read more »
MM, I agree wholeheartedly with your last paragraph. I disagree with your analysis that they can never go away, though. I worked for a supervisor in my last four years at Boeing who was Bipolar. That is just a nicer sounding word for Manic Depressive. He was 25 years my junior and I had a great relationship with him like most of us on his crew. We became close over time. One day, as I was going through my divorce, we drove around on the flightline and he explained to me why I should take a leave of absence and… Read more »
What about Aspergers or, as the woke call is today, Autism Spectrum Disorder?
Does what you say about your former boss, and his bi polar disorder apply to people with Aspergers too?
Is Aspergers what you got? hmmh…..I thought it was the cocaine.
LOL
You’ve answered everything.
Ok, I haven’t heard of someone having that problem that took a drug when it happened and then it was ok. The cases I have heard of they take drugs everyday for their entire lives and the problem is when they think they are ok, they quit taking the drugs and then the problems come back. Of course I am sure there are varying degrees of mental illness and different treatments availible. My mother was schizophrenic and manic depressive. It’s in your genes and doesn’t go away. She had the problem I told you about and I have heard therapists… Read more »
I have not heard of the gene thing at all. In my case, I was taking a pill and seeing a therapist for three months before ‘ I got better ‘. I was told by the med doctor that my having lost 68 lbs in 5 weeks, after stopping a 27 year old habit of smoking and no alcohol for a month contributed to my mania. I am not sure what changed my issue. It was either the Paxcil or my ability to start eating again that changed my neurosis. My only thought is that it can happen cuz it… Read more »
Ok, your problem was not genetic it was do to the stress you were under and God knows when something like that happens there is a lot of stress even in a mutual break up. A totally cold blooded person that wouldn’t feel stress over something like that has a disorder called antisocial personality disorder or psychopathy. Serial killers have no empathy. Jeffrey Dahmer had his neighbors across the street over for dinner. They got to talking about the neighborhood and the guest said to Jeffrey, ” you know, I really don’t like your next door neighbor” Jeffrey said, “then… Read more »
I concur. Funny analogy
I once had a (then unknown) nut case room mate who is manic depressant/bi polar who, within sight of a Sheriff who was present for my safety, tried to murder me with a handgun. Based on this fact I will tell you that no person with true mental issues should ever be allowed to own a firearm, be near a firearm, drive a car, operate machinery etc. Yes, I know that this goes against their second amendment rights BUT, I was nearly murdered under controlled, supervised circumstances by a certified nut case. If YOU want to hand a nut case… Read more »
That sounds like a wishy washy way of saying no, from the Iowa Firearms Coalition.
What rights do people lose for a lifetime, unless they’re in prison all their lives? Besides the right to own a gun? Any?
If this “N.S.” is “too dangerous” to own a gun, then he should be committed or in prison. But since he’s a “free man”, then he should have all his rights.
If 2A groups can’t figure this out, and work on our behalf then we’re in trouble.
Well, Nick, if he gets ’em back we’ll send him over to your house to celebrate, OK? IF Mental Health was not so underfunded in this country he probably WOULD still be locked-up but, just like the prison system, people who shouldn’t be released often are to make way for those newly committed/sentenced. Like most involuntarily-committed mental patients who are released, he is probably on what amounts to lifetime “parole”, contingent upon him taking his meds and attending his therapy sessions – violating either of those conditions can send him back to the institution. Parolees are still under sentence and,… Read more »
I disagree entirely. The biggest issue is a spiritual crises, a lack of belief in God, broken families, a overburdened middle class, drugs… the list goes on. We like to say everything’s “mental health”, because it’s easier than saying our entire culture is screwed up. We as a society can’t even agree that boys have penises and girls have vaginas, so our society is TOTALLY NUTS. That’s not to say there isn’t true mental illness, of course there is, but too often we as a society try to put a band aid on something as opposed to deal with the… Read more »
My impression was that most involuntary commitments are 72 hour psychiatric holds. At least in California, they can commit you for 3 days with little due process and going longer practically takes an act of congress – plus insurance to make it lucrative for facility holding you. My sister was a wonderful person when she was well, but as @MM44M wrote above – when she felt well/OK, she’d go off her meds. There were times she was fine off the meds. However when she needed the meds and was at her craziest, she’d be feeling fine and believe she needed… Read more »