In re A.M.
| Decision Date | 10 January 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 16-2073,16-2073 |
| Citation | 908 N.W.2d 280 |
| Parties | In the MATTER OF A.M., A.M., Petitioner/Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Court of Appeals |
Kevin D. Engels of Correll, Sheerer, Benson, Engels, Galles & Demro, P.L.C., Cedar Falls, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State.
Heard by Vogel, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.
A.M. appeals the district court’s refusal to restore his firearm rights under Iowa Code section 724.31 (2016). After reviewing the available record, we reach the same conclusion as the district court—A.M. did not present sufficient evidence to show he would not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety. Accordingly, we affirm.
In 2010, then twenty-year-old A.M. was abusing alcohol; by his own account, he drank almost every day. He also suffered from depression starting in high school. And although A.M. was prescribed medication, he refused to take it.
After a night of heavy drinking1 in March 2010, A.M. contacted Shane Hoff, who was a Bremer County Sheriff’s Deputy and a family friend. A.M. was driving his brother’s truck and asked Hoff to follow him home; Hoff, who was on patrol duty, refused two separate requests and told A.M. not to drive if he was drunk. But A.M. drove anyway and sideswiped a bridge with his brother’s truck. A.M. again contacted Deputy Hoff and asked him to survey the damage to the truck. Hoff stopped by the home of A.M.’s mother to inspect the truck and talk to A.M.
After Deputy Hoff left, A.M. grew more distraught and decided to commit suicide with his mother’s shotgun. Once A.M.’s mother awoke and realized her son’s plans, they ended up struggling over the gun. A.M.’s thirteen-year-old sister helped by distracting A.M. so their mother could hide the gun. A.M. became enraged and assaulted his mother and sister, as well as a neighbor to whose house they ran for help. After responding to a 911 call, Deputy Hoff arrested A.M., who was charged with burglary and assault.2 All three of A.M’s assault victims required medical attention for their injuries.
As a result of the violent incident, A.M.’s mother initiated civil commitment proceedings, writing in the application under Iowa Code section 229.6 that this was "not the first time that [A.M.] has gotten this way with me or family members." Once at the hospital, A.M. didn’t want to disclose why he was there and wouldn’t take responsibility for his actions. Psychological testing confirmed A.M.’s problems with anger management and substance abuse. Specifically, the psychologist’s March 7, 2010 report opined that A.M. was "at risk of ongoing problems with poor control over his aggressive impulses." A medical doctor reported A.M. "minimized any depressive symptoms" and assessed him as having "probable alcohol dependence versus abuse."
The hospital discharged A.M. to outpatient mental-health and substance-abuse treatment. He continued treatment for "a couple of months" after his discharge. He also completed substance abuse counseling as a requirement of his probation. A.M. took the medication prescribed to him for a few months after his discharge. When he believed he was better, he stopped taking the medication without consulting a doctor. A.M. also abstained from alcohol for a couple of years after his discharge fearing he wouldn’t be able to handle himself if he resumed drinking. But he eventually returned to occasionally consuming alcohol.
A.M. started a romantic relationship shortly after he was released from the hospital, and he married in 2013. The couple had a son in the spring of 2015. A.M. also opened his own full-time painting business.
As a result of his involuntary hospitalization, A.M. lost his firearm privileges in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(4) and (g)(4).3 Wishing to someday teach his son to hunt, A.M. filed a petition to restore his privileges under Iowa Code section 724.31. As required by statute, the district court ordered a hearing on the matter in November 2016. See Iowa Code § 724.31(3) (). The provision also mandated the court receive evidence, offered by petitioner A.M., concerning all of the following:
A.M. provided his mental-health records from March 2010. A.M. also offered his criminal-history records showing only speeding tickets since the time of the burglary and assaults.
As far as his reputation, A.M. called his mother and Deputy Hoff as character witnesses. Deputy Hoff testified he had known A.M. for eleven years through A.M.’s family. He maintained a personal relationship with A.M.; they played on the same softball team. The deputy testified he thought about quitting his job because of the 2010 incident with A.M., believing it was "his fault" as an officer and friend, and that he "should have done more" to prevent A.M. from committing the assaults. But Deputy Hoff testified he didn’t "have any fears of [A.M.] possessing or owning firearms."
A.M.’s mother testified she initiated the civil commitment process in 2010 because she wanted to get A.M. help for his drinking and did not believe he was likely to seek help on his own. She testified she now has a good relationship with A.M. and in the intervening years her son has become "a different person." She told the court she had no worries about A.M. having his firearm privileges reinstated. A.M. also testified in support of his petition.
Both the county attorney and an assistant attorney general, representing the Department of Human Services (DHS), appeared and questioned witnesses. After the hearing, the county attorney filed a statement in support of A.M.’s petition. The DHS did not join that statement. After considering the evidence, the district court denied A.M.’s petition reasoning "too little time" had passed since A.M.’s commitment and noting A.M.’s "only long-term change" is that he no longer drinks alcohol in excess.
A.M. filed a motion to amend, enlarge, or modify in light of the county attorney’s statement of support. The district court denied the motion, noting it considered the statement of support when reaching its conclusion. A.M. now appeals.
By statute, our review of the district court’s denial of relief is de novo. Iowa Code § 724.31(4). Under a de novo review, "we make an independent evaluation of the totality of the circumstances as shown by the entire record." State v. Howard , 509 N.W.2d 764, 767 (Iowa 1993). But because the district court had the opportunity to observe the witnesses and evaluate their credibility firsthand, we give deference to its factual findings. See State v. Fleming , 790 N.W.2d 560, 563 (Iowa 2010) ; see also In re E.C. , No. MISC-107-89, 2015 WL 4112097, at *4 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. July 8, 2015) ().
Federal law prohibits A.M. from possessing a firearm. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) (). Congress enacted this prohibition as part of the Gun Control Act of 1968. See Nash E. Gilmore, Note, A Bridge Over Troubled Water: The Second Amendment Guarantee for the Previously Mentally Institutionalized , 86 Miss. L.J. 1, 14–15 (2017) [hereinafter Gilmore].
From 1968 until 1992, people seeking restoration of their firearm privileges were required to apply for relief to the director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c). Id . at 15–16. Until 1986, only those banned from possessing firearms due to certain felony convictions could seek restoration. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury v. Galioto , 477 U.S. 556, 558, 106 S.Ct. 2683, 91 L.Ed.2d 459 (1986). Then Congress redrafted section 925(c) using broader language to permit people previously committed to a mental institution or classified as "a mental defective" to petition the ATF for restoration of their firearm privileges. Id. at 559, 106 S.Ct. 2683. If the ATF director concluded a person "[would] not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest," then the person’s firearm privileges would be reinstated. Gilmore, at 16.
Congress defunded the ATF program in 1992 making it functionally impossible to reinstate a person’s firearm privileges under § 925(c). See id. Then "[i]n 2008, in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, Congress realized the importance of a well-maintained and accurate National Instant Check System (NICS)." Id . at 17. Congress authorized federal grants to help states provide more reliable records to the NICS. See NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110–180, §§ 103–105, 122 Stat. 2568– 70, 2559 (2008). But as a condition of the grants, Congress required states to establish restoration methods similar to the defunded ATF program. See Gilmore at 17. As part of their relief programs, states must instruct reviewing courts to consider the applicant’s record and reputation when making two determinations: (1) the person "will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety" and (2) "the granting of...
To continue reading
Request your trial