Opinion ID: 2762420
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Tyler’s Evidence

Text: Both Tyler and the government marshal historical sources and secondary historical scholarship to discuss whether the conduct proscribed by § 922(g)(4)—possession of a firearm by a person previously committed to a mental institution—fell within the historical scope of the Second Amendment. Tyler relies on the English Bill of Rights, which provided: “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” 1 W. & M., c. 2, § 7, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 441 (1689); see Heller, 554 U.S. at 592–93. Heller explains the purpose of this provision: “Between the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution, the Stuart Kings Charles II and James II succeeded in using select militias loyal to them to 8 See, e.g., Heller v. District of Columbia (Heller II), 670 F.3d 1244, 1282 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting) (“Heller and McDonald didn’t just reject interest balancing. The Court went much further by expressly rejecting [the dissent’s] intermediate scrutiny approach, disclaiming cost-benefit analysis, and denying the need for empirical inquiry. By doing so, the Court made clear . . . that strict and intermediate scrutiny are inappropriate.”) (emphasis added). No. 13-1876 Tyler v. Hillsdale Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, et al. Page 13 suppress political dissidents, in part by disarming their opponents.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 592. As a result of these experiences, Englishmen “obtained an assurance from William and Mary, in the Declaration of Right (which was codified as the English Bill of Rights), that Protestants would never be disarmed.” Id. at 593. It is unclear, however, whether the provision in the English Bill of Rights limiting the right to that “allowed by law” encompassed individuals previously committed to a mental institution. Tyler also relies heavily on legal commentary by William Blackstone, “whose works . . . constituted the preeminent authority on English law for the founding generation.” Id. at 593–94. Tyler quotes Blackstone as recognizing the right to arms as “a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation.” 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries . Blackstone recognized that restraints on this right, as well as other fundamental English rights, must be “so gentle and moderate . . . that no man of sense or probity would wish to see them slackened.” Ibid. Under this scheme, individuals were “restrained from nothing, but what would be pernicious either to ourselves or our fellow-citizens.” Ibid. Blackstone spoke approvingly on prohibitions on unlawful hunting or appearing armed in certain places “with the face blacked or with other disguise, and being armed with offensive weapons, to the breach of the public peace and the terror of his majesty’s subjects.” 4 William Blackstone, Commentaries  (discussing the statute 1 Hen. VII., c. 7 and the statute 9 Geo. I., c. 22). Similarly, Blackstone described how the “offence of riding or going armed, with dangerous or unusual weapons, is a crime against the public peace, by terrifying the good people of the land, and is particularly prohibited by the statute of Northampton, 2 Edw. III, c. 3.” Id. at . Blackstone does not resolve whether a mental-institution prohibition such as the one at issue here would have been considered a “due restriction.” Other historical sources cited by Tyler are no more helpful. Under the Militia Act of 1662, “any person or persons” who were judged “dangerous to the Peace of the Kingdome” could be disarmed. 13 & 14 Car. 2, c. 3, § 1 (1662) (Eng.). But we already know from Heller that the right to bear arms, both now and as understood in 1791, did not extend to certain classes of people. Tyler also cites ratification history, but Heller explained that the ratification debate No. 13-1876 Tyler v. Hillsdale Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, et al. Page 14 over the right to keep and bear arms was not over the nature of the right but “over whether it needed to be codified in the Constitution.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 598.