Gun News

IF You Are Crazy, The Court Can Take Your Gun Rights (temporarily)… ~ VIDEO

Fourth Circuit Rules: Yes, the Government Can Temporarily Disarm You—But Only After a Due Process Finding.

If you’ve ever been involuntarily committed to a mental institution—even years ago—you might lose your Second Amendment rights. At least temporarily. That’s the message from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Gould (No. 24-4192, decided July 29, 2025).

Let’s break it down in plain language for gun owners who care about liberty, fairness, and the Constitution.

The Court’s Ruling in a Nutshell

The federal law at issue—18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4)—makes it a crime to possess a gun if you’ve been involuntarily committed to a mental institution. James Gould challenged this law head-on, saying it violated the Second Amendment on its face (that is, in every situation). He didn’t argue that it violated his rights specifically—he just said the entire law was unconstitutional.

The court disagreed.

The Fourth Circuit said the law can be constitutional in at least some cases—especially where a court has already found that someone was mentally ill and dangerous to themselves or others. That made Gould’s blanket “facial challenge” a no-go.

What Counts as a Valid Gun Ban?

The judges leaned heavily on Bruen and Rahimi, recent Supreme Court cases that say gun restrictions must line up with our country’s historical traditions. According to the court, there is a historical tradition of keeping weapons out of the hands of dangerous people—whether they were criminals, lunatics, or folks who made threats with weapons in public.

And here’s the key: The disarmament must follow a real legal process. You can’t lose your rights just because your neighbor doesn’t like your politics or thinks you’re “unstable.” A court must first find you pose a real threat.

That’s exactly what happened to Gould. He was committed to mental institutions four times between 2016 and 2019. He never petitioned to get his rights back. Then, in 2022, cops found a shotgun in his home.

Why Shooters Shouldn’t Panic (Yet)

This ruling sounds harsh, but let’s be honest—most gun owners aren’t being committed to psychiatric wards against their will. And the court was clear: This isn’t permanent. You can get your rights restored through a proper legal process, especially in states like West Virginia that offer Second Amendment restoration pathways.

In fact, the court made a point to say they are not shutting the door on future as-applied challenges—where someone argues, “Hey, I’m fine now, and this law still bans me unfairly.” That means the fight isn’t over for folks who’ve recovered from past issues and want their rights back.

The Big Mental Health Question

One of the trickiest parts of this case is how the law draws the line between “mentally ill” and “dangerous.” Plenty of people deal with mental health struggles—depression, anxiety, PTSD—and go on to live safe, responsible lives. But § 922(g)(4) only kicks in when someone has been involuntarily committed by a court because they were considered dangerous.

That’s a big difference from just seeing a therapist or taking medication.

So no, the feds can’t take your guns just because you once took Zoloft in college.

Fictional Crazies Who Definitely Can’t Have Guns (Thanks to § 922(g)(4))

Let’s be honest: even the most hardcore 2A supporters wouldn’t want these folks armed. If the Fourth Circuit’s ruling applied to famous fictional characters, here’s who’d be out of luck when it comes to gun rights:

Michael Myers (Halloween): Committed, escaped, and just won’t die. He’s the poster child for why dangerous lunatics shouldn’t have access to firearms—or knives, for that matter.
Randle P. McMurphy (One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest): Sure, he was more of a rebel than a threat. But after getting committed for being “psychopathic,” he’d still be disarmed under this ruling—unless Nurse Ratched restored his rights (spoiler: she didn’t).
Norman Bates (Psycho): Running a motel while talking to your dead mother in a wig = involuntary commitment material. Firearms? Not today, Norman.
The Joker (Pick a version—Heath, Joaquin, Ledger): In and out of Arkham Asylum like it’s a drive-thru. He’d qualify for a lifetime NICS ban, even without the purple suit.
Hannibal Lecter (Silence of the Lambs): Doctor? Yes. Mental institution alum? Also yes. Cannibal? Definitely. Shouldn’t be allowed near guns, scalpels, or Chianti.
Leatherface (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre): Technically never used a gun. But still, the man wears human faces and runs around with a chainsaw. A big “nope” on the 4473.
️Tyler Durden (Fight Club): An entire club of mentally unwell anarchists led by a hallucination? That’s a one-way ticket to ATF denial land.
Jack Torrance (The Shining): “All work and no play” makes Jack… a prohibited person. The Overlook Hotel might be haunted, but that axe-wielding stare is pure 922(g)(4) material.
Dr. Jekyll / Mr. Hyde: Voluntary potion-induced madness still counts if you start assaulting townsfolk. Jekyll might pass a background check. Hyde, not so much.

Moral of the Sidebar: If your name appears in a horror movie, thriller, or dystopian novel—and you’ve ever had a “chat” with imaginary friends—don’t expect the court to restore your gun rights anytime soon.

What This Means Going Forward

Here’s the good news: The Fourth Circuit didn’t give the government a blank check.

They emphasized the importance of due process—a formal court finding of dangerousness.
They reaffirmed the possibility of restoring your rights.
And they opened the door to future legal challenges by people unfairly caught up in this statute.

This isn’t the end of the story. If you’ve been involuntarily committed in the past, but you’re stable and safe today, you might still be able to reclaim your Second Amendment rights.

How This Ties Into the Bigger 2A Picture

Mark Smith was right to point out the bigger trend: This case aligns with what the Trump administration and pro-2A lawmakers are pushing—a restoration of rights program that gives folks a real way back after old legal issues. That matters.

Because at the end of the day, if the system takes away your rights without a path to restore them, that’s not justice—it’s tyranny.

Final Word: Yes, the court says if a judge finds you’re dangerous because of mental illness, your gun rights can be taken—at least for a while.

But it’s not forever. And it’s not without a fight.