US v. Gould: Between 2016 and 2019 Gould was (temporarily) committed to mental health facilities four times. In 2022, officers found a shotgun in Gould’s home. As a result, he was charged with possession of a firearm after having been “committed to a mental institution” under 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(4). Gould moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that it violated the Second Amendment. The district court denied the motion and Gould pleaded guilty, ultimately being sentenced to time served plus three years of supervised release.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of Gould’s motion to dismiss. Utilizing the two-step analysis from Bruen, the court first concluded that the applicable conduct at issue – Gould’s possession of a shotgun in his home – fell within the confines of the Second Amendment. The court then held that §922(g)(4) was not a permanent disability because many states (including West Virginia, where Gould lived) had mechanisms to get relief from its provisions. In light of that, and considering the nature of Gould’s facial challenge, the court ultimately concluded that §922(g)(4) did not violate the Second Amendment, as historical authority showed longstanding regulations related to disarming dangerous peoples and the treatment of the mentally ill who would fall into that category.
NOTE: I was co-counsel on this case, along with my colleague Lex Coleman from the SDWV FPD Office.
No comments:
Post a Comment