Duy Mai v. United States, No. 18-36071 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action alleging an as-applied Second Amendment challenge to 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4). Section 922(g)(4) prohibits plaintiff from possessing firearms due to his involuntary commitment in 1999 to a mental institution for more than nine months after a Washington state court found plaintiff to be both mentally ill and dangerous. Plaintiff argued that the statute's continued application to him despite his alleged return to mental health and peaceableness violates the Second Amendment.
The panel held that, assuming without deciding, section 922(g)(4)'s prohibition burdens Second Amendment rights, intermediate scrutiny applies. The panel also held that the prohibition on the possession of firearms by persons, like plaintiff, whom a state court has found to be both mentally ill and dangerous is a reasonable fit with the government's indisputably important interest in preventing gun violence. The panel explained that scientific evidence supports the congressional judgment that those who have been committed involuntarily to a mental institution still pose an increased risk of violence even years after their release from commitment. Therefore, in this case, the panel held that the statute's continued application to plaintiff did not violate the Second Amendment.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint containing an as-applied Second Amendment challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4), which prohibits plaintiff from possessing firearms due to his involuntary commitment in 1999 to a mental institution for more than nine months after a Washington state court found plaintiff to be both mentally ill and dangerous. Plaintiff argued that § 922(g)(4)’s continued application to him despite his alleged return to mental health and peaceableness violated the Second Amendment. The panel held that, assuming (without deciding) that § 922(g)(4)’s prohibition burdens Second Amendment rights, intermediate scrutiny applied. The panel also held that the prohibition on the possession of firearms by persons, like plaintiff, whom a * The Honorable David A. Ezra, United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation. MAI V. UNITED STATES 3 state court has found to be both mentally ill and dangerous is a reasonable fit with the government’s indisputably important interest in preventing gun violence. Scientific evidence supported the congressional judgment that those who have been committed involuntarily to a mental institution still pose an increased risk of violence even years after their release from commitment. The panel therefore concluded that Section 922(g)(4)’s continued application to plaintiff did not violate the Second Amendment.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on September 10, 2020.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.