United States v. Bartley, No. 20-30034 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Bartley was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4), based on his 2011 commitment to an Idaho state hospital after he was found incompetent to stand trial. Section 922(g)(4) prohibits the possession of a firearm by any person “who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution.” The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of Bartley’s motion to dismiss.
The court rejected Bartley’s contentions that the 2011 state proceedings to determine his competency to face criminal charges lacked due process and that because the state court did not find that he was both mentally ill and dangerous, the 2011 proceedings did not constitute an adjudication or commitment within the meaning of section 922(g)(4). Neither section 922(g)(4) nor 27 C.F.R. 478.11 requires a finding that the committed person was both mentally ill and dangerous nor a separate finding under Idaho law that Bartley was a person to whom section 922(g)(4) applies. Assuming without deciding that the application of section 922(g)(4) to Bartley burdened Second Amendment rights, the court applied intermediate scrutiny and found the government’s statutory objective to be “significant, substantial, or important,” and a “reasonable fit” between the challenged law and that objective.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed a criminal judgment in a case in which the defendant, who was committed in 2011 to an Idaho state hospital after he was found incompetent to stand trial, entered a conditional guilty plea to unlawful possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4), which prohibits the possession of a firearm by any person “who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution.” The panel rejected the defendant’s contention that the 2011 state proceedings to determine his competency to face criminal charges lacked due process. The panel rejected the defendant’s contention that because the state court did not find that he was both mentally ill and dangerous, the 2011 proceedings did not constitute an adjudication or commitment within the meaning of § 922(g)(4). The panel explained that neither § 922(g)(4) nor 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 requires a finding that the committed person was both mentally ill and dangerous. The panel also rejected the defendant’s contention that because the state court did not make a finding under Idaho Code § 66-356 that he is a person to whom § 922(g)(4) applies, the 2011 competency proceedings do not come within the meaning of § 922(g)(4). The panel explained that this argument is UNITED STATES V. BARTLEY 3 precluded by the language of § 922(g)(4) and § 478.11, which do not require a separate finding. Assuming without deciding that the application of § 922(g)(4) to the defendant burdens Second Amendment rights, the panel applied intermediate scrutiny, which requires the government’s statutory objective to be “significant, substantial, or important,” and a “reasonable fit” between the challenged law and that objective. Applying intermediate scrutiny, the panel held that the application of § 922(g)(4) to the defendant does not violate his Second Amendment right to possess a firearm.
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.