A federal judge has ruled that a history of involuntary commitment to a hospital for mental health reasons is not enough to bar a person from owning firearms under federal law.

U.S. District Judge Kim R. Gibson of the Western District of Pennsylvania's ruling came in plaintiff Alton Franklin's lawsuit against the federal government, in which Franklin claimed he was unconstitutionally stripped of his right to bear arms because of a less-than-24-hour hospitalization for “acute psychosis,” according to Gibson's opinion.

Gibson's ruling focused on 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4), the federal statute that lays out the circumstances for prohibition of firearm ownership for a person deemed “a mental defective,” and its interplay with Section 302 of the Pennsylvania Mental Health Procedures Act, detailing involuntary commitment for mental health reasons.

Although Franklin was committed, Gibson held that because he was not deemed a mental defective, he was not prohibited from owning guns. However, Gibson noted that the case presented deeper legal issues that he could not explore, since they were unnecessary to resolving the case at hand.

“While this narrow disposition of this matter leaves many of the specific, novel legal issues raised and argued by the parties undecided, the court deems it inappropriate to adjudicate or opine on issues—regardless of their novelty—when the examination of such issues is not necessary to fully resolve the case before it,” Gibson said.

Franklin's lawyer, Joshua Prince, said Gibson's ruling still had a broader impact than deciding a single case.

“Judge Gibson has found that a 302 emergency mental health evaluation is not sufficient to trigger a federal firearm and ammunition disability under Section 922(g)(4), since it does not meet the requirements for a formal commitment under federal law,” Prince said in an email. “This means that other individuals in Pennsylvania, who have only underwent a 302 emergency mental health evaluation, would likewise not be prohibited under federal law. This is a monumental decision, since prior to it, an individual who was 302'ed would have little recourse, absent a Second Amendment as-applied challenge, since although there is a state-relief provision, it does not provide federal relief, as discussed by Judge Gibson in his decision.”

Prince continued, “Moreover, while not directly addressing the constitutional issues, Judge Gibson acknowledged that we raised very serious concerns over the constitutionality of stripping an individual of his/her right to keep and bear arms in perpetuity in the absence of due process. This decision now sets the foundation for challenging Pennsylvania's state prohibition on those very grounds.”