{"id":117721,"date":"2026-07-07T15:17:38","date_gmt":"2026-07-07T20:17:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=117721"},"modified":"2026-07-07T15:17:38","modified_gmt":"2026-07-07T20:17:38","slug":"117721","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=117721","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.ammoland.com\/2026\/07\/united-states-v-rose-lifetime-mental-health-gun-ban\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">United States v. Rose: A Second Amendment Skeptic Embraces the Present-Danger Rule<\/a><\/p>\n<p>\u201cJudge Frank Easterbrook, a Reagan-appointed federal appeals judge, with a long record of ruling against the Second Amendment has just ruled favorably for 2A. By applying the Supreme Court\u2019s present-physical danger rule to an individual facing a lifetime gun ban due to a long-ago mental illness, Judge Easterbrook has broadened the scope of 2A protections. This decision is proof that Second Amendment jurisprudence is taking hold even among its skeptics. United States v. Rose is the latest stop on the incremental march restoring the right to keep and bear arms to anyone who is not, right now, a genuine threat of physical violence to themselves or to others.\u201d \u2013\u00a0<strong>Professor Mark W. Smith, Four Boxes Diner host<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><iframe loading=\"lazy\" title=\"YouTube video player\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/o6HMoVzDOQU?si=lU9WRwmHOyU4xJfy\" width=\"640\" height=\"360\" frameborder=\"0\" allowfullscreen=\"allowfullscreen\" data-mce-fragment=\"1\"><\/iframe><\/p>\n<p>A prominent federal appeals judge with a long record of ruling against Second Amendment claims has reached a legal conclusion that the gun-rights community has waited years to hear.<\/p>\n<p>In\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.ammoland.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/United-States-v.-Jonathan-Rose.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><strong>United States v. Rose<\/strong><\/a>, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Frank Easterbrook, held that the lifetime firearms disability in 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 922(g)(4) \u2014 which bars anyone ever committed to a mental institution \u2014 may be constitutionally invalid as applied to someone no longer mentally ill or physically dangerous. The court vacated the dismissal of the charges against Jonathan Rose and remanded for further fact-finding.<\/p>\n<div class=\"ai-viewport-1\" data-insertion-position=\"prepend\" data-selector=\".ai-insert-8-15274360\" data-insertion-no-dbg=\"\" data-code=\"PGRpdiBjbGFzcz0nY29kZS1ibG9jayBjb2RlLWJsb2NrLTgnIHN0eWxlPSdtYXJnaW46IDhweCBhdXRvOyB0ZXh0LWFsaWduOiBjZW50ZXI7IGRpc3BsYXk6IGJsb2NrOyBjbGVhcjogYm90aDsnPgo8IS0tIC8yMjcwMjk5MTMwMS9BbW1vbGFuZC9BTF9Jbi1Db250ZW50X0Rlc2t0b3AgLS0+CjxkaXYgaWQ9J2Rpdi1ncHQtYWQtMTc2NTU1NDM1ODA1Mi0wJyBzdHlsZT0nbWluLXdpZHRoOiA2NDBweDsgbWluLWhlaWdodDogNDgwcHg7Jz4KICA8c2NyaXB0PgogICAgZ29vZ2xldGFnLmNtZC5wdXNoKGZ1bmN0aW9uKCkgeyBnb29nbGV0YWcuZGlzcGxheSgnZGl2LWdwdC1hZC0xNzY1NTU0MzU4MDUyLTAnKTsgfSk7CiAgPC9zY3JpcHQ+CjwvZGl2PjwvZGl2Pgo=\" data-block=\"8\">\n<div class=\"code-block code-block-8\">\n<div id=\"div-gpt-ad-1765554358052-0\" data-google-query-id=\"CMbYkMiwwZUDFZbL0gQdkeMOcg\">\n<div id=\"google_ads_iframe_\/22702991301\/Ammoland\/AL_In-Content_Desktop_0__container__\">\n<div id=\"AmmolandDFPAdParallaxerCont_138545299733\">\n<div>\n<div>Mr. Rose has not won his case, but the favorable-legal rule the panel appears to be leaning toward is the real story.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<h3>The Facts Behind United States v. Rose<\/h3>\n<p>In September 2009, Jonathan Rose was involuntarily committed to a mental hospital in Indiana; the record does not identify his diagnosis. He was released in January 2010 and was never recommitted. In 2022, Rose purchased several firearms from licensed dealers; other attempted purchases were denied after a database match flagged his 2009 commitment.<\/p>\n<p>In 2023, a federal grand jury indicted Rose under \u00a7 922(g)(4) for possessing firearms after a mental-health commitment, and under \u00a7 922(a)(6) for lying on ATF Form 4473 by denying in writing the commitment ever occurred. The district court, applying\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.ammoland.com\/2026\/05\/bruens-text-and-history-test-spreads-beyond-the-second-amendment\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Bruen\u2019s \u201ctext first, historical-tradition second,\u201d<\/a>\u00a0test dismissed the \u00a7 922(g)(4) count for lack of any evidence Rose is a present danger. The \u00a7 922(a)(6) counts survived; circuit precedent already treated a false statement to a dealer as compatible with the Second Amendment. The Biden DOJ then appealed on behalf of the federal government.<\/p>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<h3>What Judge Easterbook Concluded<\/h3>\n<p>The district court\u2019s key insight, which Judge Easterbrook adopted, was that Heller and McDonald\u2019s assurance that \u201clongstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill\u201d remain presumptively valid was never a blank check. Quoting the district court,\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/cases.justia.com\/federal\/appellate-courts\/ca7\/24-1086\/24-1086-2026-07-02.pdf?ts=1783011680\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">he wrote<\/a>: \u201cThe historical record does not show that people who had transient mental problems remained ineligible for life.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.ammoland.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/1019708062-District-of-Columbia-Et-Al-v-Heller.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Heller<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.ammoland.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/McDonald-v-City-of-Chicago.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">McDonald<\/a>\u00a0dicta, he explained, \u201cconcern people who are mentally ill\u201d \u2014 present tense \u2014 \u201cnot people who used to be mentally ill. Judge Easterbrook continued: \u201cYet \u00a7922(g)(4) applies to anyone who ever was committed to a mental institution. Some people are committed but released after they recover; others are committed in error and released once the mistake is discovered. Neither set of persons is mentally ill today, but \u00a7922(g)(4) applies to both categories.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Judge Easterbrook then turned to the government\u2019s position directly: \u201cThe United States contends that \u00a7 922(g)(4) is valid even with respect to persons who were never dangerous or who have recovered. That approach is hard to square with Heller, McDonald, Bruen, Rahimi, Hemani, and Wolford.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>That is a remarkable sentence from Judge Easterbrook and I am happy to report consistent with what I have previously explained. After\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.ammoland.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/United-States-v.-Rahimi.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Rahimi<\/a>\u00a0was released, I explained in the\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlpp\/much-ado-about-nothing-rahimi-reinforces-bruen-and-heller-mark-w-smith\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Harvard Journal of Law &amp; Public Policy<\/a>\u00a0that Rahimi was a victory for the Second Amendment community even though Zackey Rahimi himself lost his appeal. Why? Because the decision, 8-1 with Chief Justice Roberts writing, tied lawful disarmament under \u00a7 922(g)(8) to a judicial finding that the defendant posed a present \u201ccredible threat to the physical safety of others.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The Court\u2019s subsequent decision in\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.ammoland.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/United-States-v.-Hemani.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">United States v. Hemani<\/a>\u00a0decided 9-0 by Justice Gorsuch on June 18, 2026, extended that logic, declaring \u00a7 922(g)(3) unconstitutional as applied to a casual marijuana user not proven to be currently dangerous. Wolford v. Lopez, the 6-3 public carry decision Justice Alito authored on June 25, 2026, rounds out the recent run of Second Amendment rulings that the federal government could not square with its position here in Rose. Judge Easterbrook read Rahimi and Hemani the way I have long urged they be read: physical dangerousness to yourself or to others is the key to individual disarmament, and dangerousness is assessed as of now.<\/p>\n<h3>A Skeptic\u2019s Conversion, and Why It Matters More Because of Who Wrote it<\/h3>\n<p>I have long been critical of Judge Easterbrook\u2019s record on the Second Amendment. A 1985 Reagan appointee, he joined Judge Diane Wood\u2019s 2023 opinion in Bevis v. City of Naperville, which upheld Illinois\u2019s ban on semiautomatic rifles and standard-capacity magazines. A judge with that record had no obligation to read Rahimi and Hemani as generously as he did here, and I did not expect him to. That he did is the whole point of how I understand this long-term fight for 2A rights.<\/p>\n<p>We do not restore the right to keep and bear arms in a single sweeping ruling. We restore it precedent by precedent, brick by brick, step by step, until the Supreme Court\u2019s dangerousness rule becomes so plainly binding that even 2A hostile judges must apply it. The Rose decision is that dynamic made visible \u2014 the rule now functioning as law, not a menu skeptical circuits can decline.<\/p>\n<h3>Remand, Not Victory\u2014 and an Important Question for the Trump DOJ<\/h3>\n<p>None of this means Mr. Rose walks away a free man. The Seventh Circuit vacated the dismissal and remanded for the district court to develop a record on whether Rose was, and remains, a genuine danger \u2014 dangerousness must be shown, not presumed from a sixteen-year-old hospitalization. And it matters that the losing position under review was the Biden administration\u2019s, not necessarily the Trump DOJ position; the case was argued in 2024. On remand, the Trump Justice Department will decide how to proceed, with the chance to align its position with the Supreme Court\u2019s own doctrine rather than regurgitate Biden\u2019s arguments.<\/p>\n<p>The timing is not incidental. The Trump DOJ has separately been rebuilding 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 925(c), the dormant mechanism for restoring firearms rights to those no longer dangerous. Separating the genuinely dangerous from the merely once-committed is the same question any functioning restoration process must answer. Rose does not resolve that effort, but I take it as confirmation that the principle is taking hold even in courtrooms least inclined to enforce it: the Constitution requires proof of present physical and violent danger before a citizen loses the right to keep and bear arms.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>United States v. Rose: A Second Amendment Skeptic Embraces the Present-Danger Rule \u201cJudge Frank Easterbrook, a Reagan-appointed federal appeals judge, with a long record of ruling against the Second Amendment has just ruled favorably for 2A. By applying the Supreme Court\u2019s present-physical danger rule to an individual facing a lifetime gun ban due to a &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=117721\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-117721","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-courts","category-rkba"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/117721","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=117721"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/117721\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":117722,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/117721\/revisions\/117722"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=117721"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=117721"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=117721"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}