While not strictly about restoring firearm rights, the recent US Supreme Court case of Caniglia v. Strom, Case No. 20–157 (May 17, 2021) provides important protections for firearm owners in some states and may have important implications for “red flag” laws.
Some states – like California – restrict the rights of firearm owners on the basis of mental health deficiencies, addictions and other reasons. Caniglia is important because it means that in those states, a mere allegation of mental ill health or addiction cannot be the basis for law enforcement to automatically seize weapons. A warrant from a judge is required before weapons can be seized. The warrant requirement means that a judge will have to make a prior determination that the mental health or other condition is sufficient for the seizure of any weapons owned by the individual. For example, California Welf. & Inst. Code § 8100 bans a person from possessing, buying, receiving or having a firearm under his or her control if:
- He or she has been admitted to a facility and is receiving inpatient treatment AND
- In the opinion of the attending health professional who is primarily responsible for the patient’s treatment of a mental disorder, he or she is a danger to self or others even though the person has consented to that treatment
Notably, the firearm restrictions are eliminated once the person is discharged from the care facility. Under Caniglia, to issue a warrant, a California judge will have to make a determination that the person meets the two requirements of the statute. As noted, this is very important for firearm owners who may be accused of having mental health issues.
Here is a brief discussion of the Caniglia case.
As reported in the case, Edward Caniglia was having an argument with his wife. During the argument, he placed a handgun on the dining room table and asked his wife to “shoot [him] and get it over with.” Caniglia’s wife left the home and spent the night at a hotel. The next morning, she could not reach her husband on the phone. Being concerned, she called the local police and asked them to conduct a “welfare check.” Caniglia’s wife accompanied the police and they found Caniglia awake and sitting on the front porch of the house. The police felt that Caniglia was a danger to himself (and others) and called an ambulance for him to a hospital for a mental health examination. Caniglia consented to go, but on the condition that the police did not take his firearms from the house. Despite this, after Caniglia left in the ambulance, the officers searched his home and seized his firearms. Caniglia sued, claiming violation of his Fourth Amendment constitutional rights against warrantless searches and seizures.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court agreed. In brief, the court held that the “wellness check” exception – generally called the “community caretaking” exception – to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement does not allow what the officers did in Caniglia’s case. Somewhere around the time when Caniglia entered the ambulance, the “community caretaking” duties of the police ended. Further, Caniglia had already left the home and, thus, was no danger to himself, others or the police officers. Despite the claim of mental illness, the police were required to obtain a warrant before searching Caniglia’s home and seizing his weapons.
Find A Firearm Rights Attorney Today
If a conviction or something else in your past is inhibiting your ability to own and carry a firearm, you may benefit from the help of an experienced firearm rights-focused attorney. FirearmRights.net can help you find attorneys in your area that can provide advice and legal counsel. This website has been developed by firearm rights attorneys with extensive experience in protecting firearm rights. Our goal is to support the firearm community by restoring the rights of people who deserve them.
Click on the “Restore Your Rights” tab to be connected with a dedicated attorney in your area who can review the facts of your case and start the journey to reclaiming your second amendment rights.