The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a federal law that prohibits individuals who have been adjudicated as mentally defective from possessing firearms. This ruling, made on October 29, 2026, affects individuals like Alexander Miguel Laykovich, who was stopped by police while heavily armed and wearing body armor. The court's decision reinforces the government's ability to restrict firearm access for those deemed a danger to public safety due to mental illness.

The case, United States v. Alexander Miguel Laykovich (Docket No. 25-5766), arose after Laykovich was found in possession of multiple firearms and ammunition while driving towards Fort Knox. His legal team argued that the law barring him from owning guns was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. However, the court ruled that the law serves a vital public safety purpose.

Background

Alexander Miguel Laykovich was previously committed to a mental institution after a state court determined he posed a danger to himself and others due to his mental illness. The incident that led to his commitment occurred in January 2023 when he was found acting erratically and expressing suicidal thoughts. Following this, he was prohibited from possessing firearms under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4).

On January 25, 2024, Laykovich was pulled over by a sheriff's deputy in Kentucky after swerving on the road. During the traffic stop, law enforcement discovered that he was in possession of eight firearms, body armor, and illegal drugs. This prompted an investigation by the FBI, which confirmed Laykovich's legal inability to own firearms due to his mental health history.

After being indicted for violating federal law, Laykovich pleaded guilty but reserved the right to appeal the constitutionality of the firearm possession ban. His legal arguments centered around the claim that the law was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

The Ruling

The Sixth Circuit, composed of Judges Julia Smith Gibbons, Eric E. Murphy, and Whitney D. Hermandorfer, ruled against Laykovich's appeal. The court stated, "Section 922(g)(4)'s gun-possession ban is 'relevantly similar' to traditional laws regulating those with severe mental illnesses." This ruling indicates that the law is consistent with historical practices of restricting firearm access for individuals deemed dangerous due to mental illness.

The judges emphasized that the Second Amendment does not grant an unlimited right to bear arms and that laws restricting access for mentally ill individuals have historical precedent. The court noted that Laykovich's situation was particularly concerning, as he had not sought to have his firearm ban lifted despite the legal option to do so.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for public safety and gun control laws. It affirms the government's authority to restrict firearm access for individuals who have been adjudicated as mentally defective, reinforcing the idea that public safety can justify such restrictions. The court's decision aligns with historical practices that allowed for the detention and disarmament of individuals whose mental health posed a risk to themselves or others.

The ruling may also influence future cases involving the Second Amendment and mental health issues, as it sets a precedent for how courts interpret the rights of individuals with mental health histories regarding firearm possession. This case highlights the ongoing tension between individual rights and public safety in the context of gun ownership.

What's Next

Laykovich's legal team has the option to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, although it remains unclear if they will pursue this route. Additionally, the case may prompt discussions about mental health and gun ownership laws at both state and federal levels, as lawmakers consider how to balance individual rights with community safety.