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.
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.
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”.
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.
“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 »
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.