United States Department of Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms v. Galioto
| Citation | 106 S.Ct. 2683,477 U.S. 556,91 L.Ed.2d 459 |
| Decision Date | 27 June 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-1904,84-1904 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF the TREASURY, BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS, Appellant v. Anthony J. GALIOTO |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Appellee, who had been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital for a period of several days in 1971, was unable to purchase a firearm from a store in 1982 because of the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 922(d) prohibiting sales of firearms to such persons. Section 922(d) and other federal statutes prohibiting persons who have been committed to mental institutions from possessing, receiving, or transporting firearms also apply to felons. However, under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c), certain felons could apply to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for administrative relief from the disabilities imposed by federal firearms laws, but no such relief was permitted for former mental patients. After unsuccessfully seeking a special exemption from the Bureau, appellee brought suit in Federal District Court, challenging the constitutionality of the firearms legislation. The court held that the statutory scheme was unconstitutional as violating equal protection principles because there was no rational basis for singling out mental patients for permanent disabled status, particularly as compared to convicts. The court also concluded that the statutory scheme unconstitutionally created an "irrebuttable presumption" that one who has been committed, no matter what the circumstances, is forever mentally ill and dangerous.
Held: The equal protection and "irrebuttable presumption" issues are now moot because, after this Court noted probable jurisdiction over this appeal and heard arguments, Congress amended § 925(c) to afford the administrative remedy contained therein to former mental patients ineligible to purchase firearms. Since appellee's complaint appears to raise other issues best addressed in the first instance by the District Court, the case is remanded for further proceedings. Pp. 559-560.
602 F.Supp. 682, vacated and remanded.
Charles A. Rothfeld, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Michael A. Casale, Nutley, N.J., for appellee.
We noted probable jurisdiction to decide whether Congress may, consistent with the Fifth Amendment, forbid all involuntarily committed former mental patients to purchase firearms while permitting some felons to do so.
In 1982 appellee attempted to purchase a firearm at Ray's Sport Shop in North Plainfield, New Jersey. The Sport Shop gave appellee a standard questionnaire, which asked, inter alia: "Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?" Appellee had been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital for a period of several days in 1971, and accordingly answered "yes" to this question. The store then refused to sell him a gun by reason of 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(4), which makes it unlawful for a licensed dealer in firearms "to sell . . . any firearm . . . to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person . . . has been adjudicated as a mental defective or had been committed to any mental institution." Federal firearms laws also forbid "any person . . . who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution . . . to ship or transport any firearm or ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce," 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), or to "receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in in- terstate or foreign commerce," § 922(h). Partially overlapping provisions of 18 U.S.C.App. §§ 1202(a)(1) and (3) prohibit any person who has "been adjudged by a court . . . of being mentally incompetent" from receiving, possessing, or transporting firearms.
After unsuccessfully seeking a special exemption from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, appellee brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, challenging the constitutionality of the firearms legislation. The District Court concluded that those portions of the federal firearms statutes that deprived appellee of his ability to purchase a firearm were constitutionally infirm. 602 F.Supp. 682, 683 (1985). Both felons and persons who have been committed to mental institutions, inter alia, are subject to the firearms disabilities contained in 18 U.S.C. § 922(d). Under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c), however, felons who have committed crimes not involving firearms may apply to the Bureau for administrative relief from these disabilities. No such relief is permitted for former mental patients.
Section 925(c) provides in relevant part:
"A person who has been convicted for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (other than a crime involving the use of a firearm or other weapon or a violation of this chapter or of the National Firearms Act) may make application to the Secretary for relief from the disabilities imposed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Keniston
..."without any logical justification for doing so" offends equal protection clause), vacated as moot, Department of Treasury v. Galioto, 477 U.S. 556, 106 S.Ct. 2683, 91 L.Ed.2d 459 (1986). On the other hand the Supreme Court before and after the Fritz decision has also upheld the constitutio......
-
United States v. United States Department of Commerce, Civ. A. No. 98-0456. Three Judge Court (RCL, DHG, RMU)
...should take an action that moots this controversy, the Supreme Court no doubt will act accordingly. See, e.g., United States Dep't of Treasury v. Galioto, 477 U.S. 556 (1986) (vacating judgment of the district court because Congress amended the statute under consideration). However, the fac......
-
Breyer v. Meissner
...The enactment of INTCA significantly alters the posture of plaintiff's claim. See, e.g., U.S. Dep't of Treasury v. Galioto, 477 U.S. 556, 559-60, 106 S.Ct. 2683, 2685-86, 91 L.Ed.2d 459 (1986). The Supreme Court has set forth a two-pronged test for mootness: "A case may become moot if (1) t......
-
U.S. House of Represent. v. U.S. Dept. of Commerce
...action that moots this controversy, the Supreme Court no doubt will act accordingly. See, e.g., United States Dep't of Treasury v. Galioto, 477 U.S. 556, 106 S.Ct. 2683, 91 L.Ed.2d 459 (1986) (vacating judgment of the district court because Congress amended the statute under consideration).......
-
THE TRAJECTORY OF FEDERAL GUN CRIMES.
...Dickerson v. New Banner Inst., 460 U.S. 103 (1983); Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856 (1985); U.S. Dep't. of Treasury v. Galioto, 477 U.S. 556 (1986); Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990); United States v. Thompson, 504 U.S. 505 (1992); Deal v. United States, 508 U.S. 129 (1993); ......