Opinion ID: 6352826
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Firearms ban

Text: ¶21 Two terms ago, we held that an appeal of an expired initial commitment order is not moot because the order collaterally subjects the committed person to a continuing firearms ban. See id., ¶25. We recognized that this firearms ban constitutes an ongoing impairment of the person's constitutional right to bear arms, which we deemed to be no minor consequence. Id. (citing U.S. Const. amend II; Wis. Const. art. I, § 25; District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008); Wis. Carry, Inc. v. City of Madison, 2017 WI 19, 373 Wis. 2d 543, 892 N.W.2d 233). We also explained that prevailing in an appeal of an expired initial commitment order voids the firearms ban. Id. Because voiding the firearms ban is a practical effect that has a causal relationship to the successful appeal of an expired initial commitment order, we deemed the appeal not moot. Id. ¶22 The question before us is whether that same rationale applies to recommitment orders. The court of appeals concluded it did not. In its view, with which the County agrees, vacating the recommitment order and voiding its corresponding firearms ban would have no practical effect because the separate ban attached to S.A.M.'s unchallenged initial commitment order would still be in effect. S.A.M., No. 2019AP1033, at ¶¶8-12. 13 No. 2019AP001033 ¶23 We disagree. The court of appeals is correct that the firearms ban attached to an initial commitment will continue to bar the committed person from possessing a firearm even if we vacate a subsequent recommitment order. But that fact does not mean prevailing in a recommitment appeal would have no practical effect on restoring one's constitutional right. Prevailing on appeal would vacate the recommitment order and practically alter a committed person's record and reputation for dangerousness, a factor a reviewing court must consider when weighing a petition to cancel a firearms ban. § 51.20(13)(cv)1m.b. Additionally, if a committed person succeeds in vacating an expired recommitment order, the fact that the recommitment order no longer exists might influence the reviewing court's weighing of whether restoring gun rights would be consistent with the public interest. Id. Even if marginal, these practical effects on a committed person's ability to restore a constitutional right remain no minor consequence. D.K., 390 Wis. 2d 50, ¶25. Thus, the causal relationship between these practical effects and our vacatur of an expired recommitment order renders an appeal of such orders not moot.