Involuntarily Committed People Can Be Denied Right to Bear Arms

A federal law that bans gun possession by people who were involuntarily committed to a mental institution doesn’t violate the Second Amendment, the Fourth Circuit said Tuesday.

There’s a historical basis for disarming individuals who are deemed to be a danger to themselves and others, Judge Albert Diaz said for the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

James Gould was involuntarily committed to mental health facilities four times in West Virginia between May 2016 and July 2019. In 2022, police found him with a shotgun and he was indicted for violating 18 USC §922(g)(4), which makes it unlawful for anyone “who has been committed to a mental institution” to possess a gun.

Gould pleaded guilty, but challenged §922(g)(4) under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, which requires courts to determine whether there’s a historical comparator to a modern-day regulation on the right to bear arms. Gould argued that there was no historical tradition at the founding of the country to support §922(g)(4)'s restrictions.

To prevail, the government wasn’t required to show a historical identical twin, it only had to show a representative analogue, Diaz said.

Section 922(g)(4) doesn’t deprive every person with mental illness from possessing a gun, only those who’ve been involuntarily committed to an institution, Diaz said. Its reach is therefore limited to instances where a tribunal with lawful authority determined that confinement was proper because the person posed a threat to themselves or others. The underlying threat is preventing violence by those who pose an increased risk to the community.

Though there were no laws at the founding relatively similar to §922(g)(4), legislators routinely permitted local officials to limit the freedom of those who posed a threat to the community, including those with mental illness, Diaz said. The history also showed that legislatures had the authority, consistent with the right to bear arms, “to disarm categories of people based on a belief that the class posed a threat of dangerousness.”

Also, §922(g)(4)'s restriction isn’t permanent in West Virginia, it may be removed if the individual shows that they’re no longer a threat, Diaz said. Because there are circumstance under which §922(g)(4) can be legitimately applied, it’s facially valid, he said.

Judges Toby J. Heytens and DeAndrea Gist Benjamin joined the opinion.

The case is United States v. Gould, 4th Cir., No. 24-4192, 7/29/25.