Colorado’s second-highest court on Wednesday upheld the process for barring firearm possession for anyone who is involuntarily committed short-term to mental health treatment.

A man identified as R.Z. argued his rights were violated when a Denver judge entered an order affecting his ability to own guns because he met the criteria for short-term mental health commitment. But a three-judge Court of Appeals panel noted lawmakers have provided an avenue for those in R.Z.’s position to remove their name from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and restore firearm access when they no longer pose a danger.

“R.Z. does not point to any legal authority supporting his contention that the right to bear arms enshrined in the Colorado Constitution bars the state from requiring a person to prove that the person’s name should be removed from the NICS,” wrote Judge Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov in the June 18 opinion.

Under federal law, a person who has been “committed to a mental institution” cannot be sold a firearm. Colorado, in facilitating that prohibition, requires reporting to the NICS database whenever there is an “order for involuntary certification for short-term treatment of a mental health disorder.” However, a person may petition to get their name removed and their gun rights restored when they are no longer a likely safety risk.

R.Z. became hospitalized for a 72-hour evaluation, and a physician filed a notice in Denver Probate Court advocating for short-term involuntary treatment due to R.Z.’s “profound catatonia” and “gravely disabled” condition. Judge Elizabeth D. Leith issued an order the next day confirming the treatment and triggering the addition of R.Z.’s name in the NICS database.

Shortly afterward, Denver moved to involuntarily administer electroconvulsive therapy and Leith appointed an attorney for R.Z. The lawyer requested a hearing, but before it could take place, a doctor at R.Z.’s hospital notified the court that R.Z. no longer met the legal criteria for involuntary commitment. Leith then closed the case.

R.Z.’s attorney then asked Leith to vacate her original order confirming involuntary treatment and remove R.Z.’s name from NICS, arguing the NICS report happened without due process and in contravention of state law. Leith denied the motion, prompting R.Z. to appeal.

The appellate panel deemed it a “legally untenable conclusion” to say that R.Z. had an unconditional right to bear arms after a doctor found R.Z. “unable to meet his basic needs without significant oversight and support from professional staff in a locked, inpatient psychiatric ward,” Lipinsky wrote.

“We are not aware of any legal authority supporting such an expansive reading of the constitutional right to bear arms of someone with a mental health disorder, and R.Z. does not cite any,” he continued.

The panel rejected the idea that R.Z. was entitled to a hearing before the initial court order that caused his name to be added to the NICS database. Lipinsky added that Colorado law contains a procedure for someone to remove their name at the end of their mental health emergency, but R.Z. had not attempted to do so.

Lipinsky concluded that R.Z. had failed to show why it is a constitutional violation to require someone subjected to involuntary mental health treatment to argue for the bar on firearm possession to be lifted. In doing so, Lipinsky quoted from the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2022 decision broadly expanding gun rights.

Someone who “lost the right to bear arms under a short-term certification does not stand in the same position as a person unconstitutionally deprived of that right through a restriction inconsistent ‘with this Nation’s historical tradition’ of firearm regulation,” he wrote.

The case is People in the Interest of R.Z.