What we got in Bruen is better, but Iowa already had an amendment in the works to codify strict scrutiny. Only, in a recent case, a judge said even that doesn't apply.

In particular, it doesn't restore gun rights to someone who was involuntarily committed to a mental hospital while a juvenile.

A Pottawattamie County man who was involuntarily committed at age 16 cannot have his gun rights restored without proving he's unlikely to harm himself or others.

The Iowa Supreme Court ruled Friday that a constitutional amendment approved by Iowa voters in 2022 doesn't render unconstitutional a state statute on the restoration of firearms rights — a decision drawing a dissent from three of the court's seven justices.

"The State has a compelling interest in preventing gun violence and suicide. Section 724.31 is narrowly tailored to serve that interest by keeping firearms from dangerous persons while allowing restoration of firearm rights upon a petitioner’s showing they are no longer a threat to public safety," Justice Thomas Waterman wrote in the majority opinion. "We decline to shift the burden of proof under section 724.31 from the petitioner to the State."

Chief Justice Susan Christensen joined the opinion, and Justices Christopher McDonald and Dana Oxley agreed with the judgement and filed an concurring opinion in part. Justice Matthew McDermott wrote a dissenting opinion that was joined by Edward Mansfield and David May.

Waterman wrote that the decision was the first opportunity the court had to consider whether Amendment 1, which establishes a "strict scrutiny" standard for Iowan's "fundamental individual right" to keep and bear arms.

The case was an appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County by a petitioner identified only as "N.S." who was involuntarily committed at age 16 on Nov. 13, 2006, by both his mother and father. The petitioner is disqualified from possessing firearms under federal law, according to the majority opinion.

...

N.S. was committed for "serious mental impairment" and chronic substance abuse. He threatened to harm himself and others, according to his parents. N.S. was diagnosed with oppositional defiant disorder among other conditions, and he was self-medicating with narcotics and alcohol instead of prescribed medication and therapy.

Oppositional Defiant Disorder may be a pain in the butt for parents, but it's hardly grounds to deny someone their right to keep and bear arms for the rest of their life. Further, I kind of have questions as to why this counts as an involuntary commitment when he was a juvenile and his parents are the ones who admitted him.

I mean, if we're not allowing 16-year-olds to make legal decisions for themselves, why does his opposition to the commitment matter now?

Regardless, this as in 2006. N.S. has seen mental health experts since then who seem to give him a clean bill of mental health, so there shouldn't be a problem.

Yet the issue with strict scrutiny versus the history, text, and tradition standard handed down from Bruen is that all you need is a judge that thinks anything is a compelling state interest to give the green light to just about anything.

That's what seems to be happening here.

It's also more of the stigmatization of mental illness, because other than the substance abuse, nothing here suggests that N.S. was a danger to anyone, and if that's cleaned up, it shouldn't be an issue. Unfortunately, we have someone who was 16 at the time and struggling to deal with all the stuff going on in their head, who the parents couldn't seem to help so they sought professional assistance, but appears to have cleaned up since then being treated like he's a step shy of being a serial killer.

It's demented.

And I expected better in Iowa. Then again, it's the judges here, not the lawmakers.