New Jersey law can prevent someone from keeping and bearing arms because of being a “habitual drunkard.” The Hunterdon County Democrat explains how this works in at least one case. Is such a restriction constitutional? I think the way this has been handled by New Jersey should be.
No one should lose or be denied a right in a case where it’s an arbitrary prior restraint applied by the police, or a mere administrative determination. But conceptually it’s difficult to see how this is much different than prohibitions against people who have been involuntarily adjudicated mentally defective. Provided the right cannot be removed except after due process through a court proceeding, and provided the prohibition lasts only as long as the condition, it’s hard to see under what grounds it differs from the prohibitions against the mentally ill.