Jefferies v. Sessions, CIVIL ACTION NO. 17–2346
| Decision Date | 03 October 2017 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 17–2346 |
| Parties | Steven JEFFERIES v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, et al |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Michael P. Gottlieb, Vangrossi & Recchuiti, Norristown, PA, for Steven Jefferies.
Paul J. Koob, U.S. Attorney's Office, Philadelphia, PA, for Jefferson B. Sessions, III, et al.
In legislation enacted in 1968, Congress prohibited persons involuntarily committed for mental illness from possessing a firearm. No one disputes the valid government purpose in ensuring an involuntarily committed person suffering with mental illness cannot possess a firearm. The tougher question arises in the permanency of this prohibition. Congress allows Pennsylvania officials or the Attorney General to grant relief from its statutory prohibition but Pennsylvania has not established a compliant program and Congress has barred funding the Attorney General's ability to administer this process. After evaluating the statute's purpose relating to once involuntarily committed persons, we follow the analytic framework set a year ago by our court of appeals in Binderup and conclude Congress can constitutionally prohibit a person once involuntarily committed from ever possessing a firearm. This is particularly so when Congress provides avenues for relief, albeit not presently available. We are not asked to today to opine on potential claims against Congress for not funding the Attorney General's waiver program or against Pennsylvania for non-compliance with the federal mandate. In the accompanying Order, we grant the Attorney General's Motion to dismiss the once-involuntarily committed person's claim Congress's prohibition is unconstitutional as-applied or deprives him of due process or equal protection under the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments.
Steven Jefferies alleges the United States violates his Second Amendment rights by prohibiting him from possessing a firearm based on his involuntary commitment under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4). He alleges the United States' failure to provide "a reasonable procedure pursuant to which an individual could regain their Second Amendment rights upon demonstrating their current mental and emotional fitness" makes the prohibition overbroad and as-applied to him impermissibly burdens his Second Amendment rights. He alleges the United States also violates his Fifth Amendment right to due process by depriving him of his right to keep and bear arms without pre-deprivation notice and an opportunity to be heard or a post-deprivation proceeding for relief from the prohibition. He lastly alleges an equal protection violation under the Fourteenth Amendment but does not identify similarly situated parties.
We find, as a matter of law, his arguments lack merit under our court of appeals' 2016 holding directing us to not consider the person's rehabilitation since the incident causing the prohibition.
Fifty-two year old Steven Jefferies lives in Montgomery County where he is self-employed as a landscaper.1 He attended technical automotive repairs school while at Plymouth Whitemarsh High School and graduated in 1984.2 He then worked as a mechanic for 25 years.3 Mr. Jefferies learned how to safely handle and shoot firearms from his father and at 12 years old, he took hunter safety classes.4 He avidly hunted deer with rifles and bow until he could no longer possess firearms.5
On October 5, 2001, Mr. Jefferies had an altercation with his former wife because he "believed, rightly or wrongly, [she] was having an affair."6 His former wife alleged Mr. Jefferies "threatened or attempted suicide" and "threatened to kill himself."7 Based on Mr. Jefferies's suicidal threats, his former wife petitioned to have the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas involuntarily commit him under § 302 of Pennsylvania's Mental Health Procedures Act.8 She swore Mr. Jefferies followed her and their 8 year old daughter to a local football game but she was unaware he followed her until they were leaving the game.9 Mr. Jefferies followed his wife and daughter home and 10
The state court involuntarily committed Mr. Jefferies on October 5, 2001 for a period not to exceed 72 hours. On October 9, 2001, Mr. Jefferies's treating doctors petitioned to continue his involuntary commitment for up to 20 more days of outpatient treatment.11 The court agreed and found Mr. Jefferies "several mentally disabled and in need of treatment" and discharged him for up to 20 days of outpatient treatment under § 303 of the Mental Health Procedures Act.12 Mr. Jefferies alleges the doctors' concern he would harm himself is the "primary reason" for his commitment and his "experience at this mental health facility was horrendous to say the least."13 Since leaving involuntary commitment in October 2001, Mr. Jefferies has not received mental health treatment.14
As a result of his involuntary commitment, both Pennsylvania and federal law prohibited Mr. Jefferies from possessing a firearm. A few years after release from his involuntary commitment, Mr. Jefferies petitioned the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas to restore his ability to possess firearms.15 The state court granted his petition on January 16, 2004 determining Mr. Jefferies "capable of possessing firearms without posing a danger to himself or others."16
Mr. Jefferies began using his firearms.17 When he tried to purchase a new firearm, he failed the Pennsylvania Instant Check System.18 Mr. Jefferies attempted to renew his license to carry concealed firearms.19 He learned he could not renew his license because federal law prohibited individuals previously subject to involuntary commitment from acquiring firearms.20
Mr. Jefferies now sues Attorney General Jefferson Sessions, the Department of Justice and a variety of federal officers and agents along with the United States (together "United States"). Mr. Jefferies asks us to declare 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) and its attendant regulations violate his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection and due process and to permanently enjoin the United States from enforcing § 922(g)(4) against Mr. Jefferies.
The Second Amendment effective December 15, 1791 ensures the Government shall not infringe "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." Our issue is whether the specific language of § 922 (g)(4) enacted in 1968 infringes Mr. Jefferies's Second Amendment right: "It shall be unlawful for any person... who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution...to...possess... any firearm or ammunition..."
The United States moves to dismiss, arguing § 922(g)(4) passes constitutional muster under the Second Amendment because it is substantially related to the furtherance of an important governmental interest of keeping firearms away from mentally ill persons.21 The United States argues even if we allow Mr. Jefferies to proceed on an as-applied challenge, § 922(g)(4) as-applied to Mr. Jefferies is constitutional because he caused his involuntary commitment by following his wife and daughter, hitting their occupied car to provoke an altercation, and threatening to commit suicide. The United States also moves to dismiss Mr. Jefferies's due process claims because there is no constitutionally required process to disqualify individuals who have been involuntarily committed from owning firearms.
Mr. Jefferies argues § 922(g)(4) is unconstitutional as-applied to him because as a "competent individual[ ] who present[s] no risk of harm to [himself] or others", the statute is an undue burden on his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.22 He further argues Congress's bar on funding of the relief afforded by 18 U.S.C. § 925(c) impermissibly infringes upon his Second Amendment right. We find neither argument persuasive.
The Second Amendment prohibits the infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms."23 Since the Supreme Court's 2008 landmark District of Columbia v. Heller opinion, appellate and trial judges have wrestled with the extent to which Congress's prohibition of firearms possessed by certain persons infringes Second Amendment rights.
In Heller , the Supreme Court held a "ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."24 The Court held "[u]nder any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights" the District of Columbia's handgun ban "would fail constitutional muster."25 Without deciding the standard of scrutiny applies, the Court noted if rational-basis scrutiny is applied, "the Second Amendment would be redundant with the separate constitutional prohibitions on irrational laws, and would have no effect."26
Neither the Supreme Court nor our court of appeals has addressed whether prohibiting a previously involuntarily committed individuals from possessing a firearm violates the Second Amendment. But key to our factual analysis, the Supreme Court in Heller cautioned "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."27
The Supreme Court in Heller did not decide the standard of scrutiny applying to Second Amendment rights because it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Franklin v. Sessions, Case No. 3:16–cv–36
...of relief from a firearms disability would not be contrary to public interest"—a requirement which § 6105(f)(1) lacks); Jefferies, 278 F.Supp.3d at 845 n. 108 (agreeing with Keyes ).As stated supra, this Court does not now offer any opinion on the merits of the constitutional claims raised ......
-
Moran v. Wis. Dep't of Justice
...firearms disabilities.8 United States v. Bean , 537 U.S. 71, 74-75, 123 S.Ct. 584, 154 L.Ed.2d 483 (2002) ; Jefferies v. Sessions , 278 F. Supp. 3d 831, 839 n.54 (E.D. Pa. 2017). As a result, § 925(c) —and, by extension, § 941.29(5)(b) —does not provide a functional mechanism for relief fro......
-
Doe v. Evanchick
...right to procedural due process before the United States applies § 922(g)(4) to him because of his involuntary commitment. 278 F.Supp.3d 831, 846 (E.D. Pa. 2017).15 Because the same is true with respect to Section 6105(c)(4), the Pennsylvania statute prohibiting an individual committed unde......
-
Keyes v. Sessions, 1:15–cv–457
...Judge Mark A. Kearney of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania came to a different result in Jefferies v. Sessions , 278 F.Supp.3d 831, 833-34, 2017 WL 4411044, at *1 (E.D.Pa. Oct. 3, 2017). There, Judge Kearney faced an as-applied challenge to § 924(g)(4) and employed the modified two prong......
-
WHO HAS THE RIGHT? ANALYSIS OF SECOND AMENDMENT CHALLENGES TO 18 U.S.C. s. 922(g) (4).
...INHERITANCE 329 (William Nelson ed., Providence, Shakespear's Head 6th ed. 1774) (1680)). (194) See, e.g., Jefferies v. Sessions, 278 F. Supp. 3d 831, 841 (E.D. Pa. 2017); Keyes v. Lynch, 195 F. Supp. 3d 702, 718 (M.D. Pa. (195) See, e.g., Beers, 927 F.3d at 158; Jefferies, 278 F. Supp. 3d ......