In re Application to Restore Firearms Rights of Keyes
83 A.3d 1016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Appellant, a Pennsylvania State Police Trooper, was involuntarily committed in 2006 under MHPA sections 7302 and 7303 after suicide attempts; those commitments trigger state and federal firearm disabilities.
- Appellant obtained a state-court order (2009) restoring his Pennsylvania firearm rights under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105(f)(1), but his involuntary-commitment records were not expunged.
- The federal Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4), bars possession by persons "committed to a mental institution," so appellant remained federally prohibited from possessing firearms off-duty; § 925(a)(1) allows government employees to possess firearms on-duty.
- Appellant filed motions seeking expungement of his MHPA commitment records (arguing § 6105(f)(1) authorized expungement); the trial court denied expungement relying on precedent that § 6111.1(g) permits expungement only for certain MHPA commitments (7302), not for 7303 commitments.
- Because appellant was committed under § 7303, the court held expungement of the 7303 record (and thus removal of the federal disability) was unavailable; related procedural challenges (untimeliness, conflict) were deemed moot.
- Appellant also raised constitutional challenges to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) and related provisions; the court rejected them and affirmed the denial of relief.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Pennsylvania State Police / Government Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 6105(f)(1) authorizes expungement of MHPA commitment records | § 6105(f)(1) gives courts power to "grant such relief as it deems appropriate," which includes expungement | § 6105(f)(1) restores firearm rights only; expungement is governed by § 6111.1(g) and MHPA; cannot be read to render § 6111.1(g) surplusage | Court: § 6105(f)(1) does not authorize expungement; expungement available only under § 6111.1(g), and § 6111.1(g) does not permit expungement of 7303 commitments |
| Whether procedural defects (untimely response; conflict of interest) required relief or dismissal of PSP's response | Procedural errors and conflict warranted exclusion of PSP and substitution of Attorney General; untimely response should be stricken | Even if procedural errors occurred, appellant suffered no prejudice because 7303 record blocks relief | Court: Procedural challenges are moot because 7303 commitment prevents expungement; no reversible prejudice shown |
| Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) violates the Second Amendment | § 922(g)(4) is overbroad and not narrowly tailored; appellant is now recovered and entitled to protection | Possession by the mentally ill falls outside Second Amendment scope; even if within scope, statute survives intermediate scrutiny as tailored to important government interest | Court: § 922(g)(4) valid; mentally ill historically excluded; statute passes means-end scrutiny (or is outside Amendment scope) |
| Whether § 922(g)(4)/§ 925(a)(1) violate equal protection or due process (and whether § 925(c) is inadequate) | Unequal treatment (on-duty exception) is irrational; § 925(c) is ineffective because ATF lacks funding for relief applications | On-duty exception rationally related to legitimate purpose (supervision/security); § 925(c) provides an avenue for relief and is constitutional despite funding/practical limitations | Court: Equal protection challenge fails under rational-basis review; § 925(c) is facially constitutional and not rendered invalid by lack of ATF funding; Bean forecloses relief without ATF action |
Key Cases Cited
- Pennsylvania State Police v. Paulshock, 836 A.2d 110 (Pa. 2003) (§ 6105 petitions restore firearm rights; they are not expungement proceedings)
- In re Expungements, 938 A.2d 1075 (Pa.Super. 2007) (discusses limits of § 6105 relief and expungement procedures)
- In re Kevin Jacobs, 15 A.3d 509 (Pa.Super. 2011) (expungement under § 6111.1(g) available for 7302 commitments but not for 7303 commitments)
- Commonwealth v. A.M.R., 887 A.2d 1266 (Pa.Super. 2005) (standard of review for expungement motions—abuse of discretion)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (Second Amendment scope and historical limitations)
- U.S. v. Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85 (3d Cir. 2010) (two-pronged Second Amendment analysis adopted for lower courts)
- U.S. v. Bean, 537 U.S. 71 (2002) (judicial review of federal firearms-disability relief requires an adverse ATF/AG action first)