Court upholds gun permit denial after mental health commitment

A man who was civilly committed after a suicide attempt appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals after his permit to carry a firearm was denied. The court affirmed the district court, finding that he was ineligible to possess a firearm under federal law. However, one judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part, raised questions about the legal consequences of mental health stigma.

Randy Sixta attempted suicide with a firearm in 2018. He was found to meet the statutory criteria for civil commitment in 2019, after a finding that he was a “mentally ill person.” His commitment to the custody of the Commissioner of Human Services for six months was stayed, and after he satisfied the conditions of the stay, the stay of commitment expired.

Prior to the suicide attempt, Sixta had a permit to carry a firearm. The permit was suspended because of the commitment proceedings, but it was reinstated after the commitment order expired.

Sixta applied to renew the permit in 2023. However, the new sheriff of Lincoln County denied the application. The commitment order was cited as the reason for the application’s denial.

Sixta petitioned the district court, and had a hearing in which he presented evidence that he was at low risk for self-harm and no longer met the criteria for depressive disorder. Nevertheless, the district court concluded that he was ineligible to possess a firearm. The court cited 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4), which prohibits an individual who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective” from possessing a firearm.

Under Minnesota law, a sheriff must issue a permit to possess a firearm. Sheriffs cannot issue a permit if an individual is prohibited from possessing a firearm under “any federal law.” The question before the court was whether Sixta, who was civilly committed, was “adjudicated as a mental defective.”

The court noted that the phrase “a mental defective” was ambiguous. Sixta, citing an 8th Circuit case, argued that civil commitments should not be covered by this phrase. In the case, United States v. Hansel, the 8th Circuit found that “a mental defective” is “a person who has never possessed a normal degree of intellectual capacity, whereas in an insane person faculties which were originally normal have been impaired by mental disease.” The court, however, noted that it was not bound by federal law.

Conversely, the sheriff’s office maintained that the definition promulgated by the ATF in a 1997 regulation should control. In that regulation, the ATF defined “adjudicated as a mental defective” to mean that a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority determined that a person, due to mental illness, was “a danger to himself or to others” or “lacks the capacity to manage his own affairs.”

Ultimately, the court concluded that the ATF’s definition was more persuasive, noting that the ATF has specialized knowledges of these matters, and that the regulation was “consistent with the long tradition of discouraging firearm possession by people living with mental illness.”

The court did address the public policy aspect of Sixta’s arguments, specifically that this incident that seemed to be well in Sixta’s past could have permanent negative legal consequences. “There may be merit to Sixta’s position, considering that he received a stayed civil commitment, complied with all conditions set by the commitment court, sought therapy and counseling, was subsequently determined by his treating doctor to be at a low risk for self-harm, and whose treating doctor testified he no longer met the criteria for a depressive disorder,” Judge Jon Schmidt asserted. “But we are not a policymaking court.”

In his concurrence/dissent, Judge Francis Connolly wrote, “At oral argument, I asked counsel for respondent whether the ban would still apply if the incident involving appellant had happened at age 18, and 50 years later, he applied for a firearm permit. Respondent’s counsel conceded that it would. I was then, and am now, simply astounded by that answer. In a time when society is trying finally to remove the stigma of mental illness, respondent’s position guarantees that appellant will have that stigma for the rest of his life.”