When a South Carolina probate court commits a child under 16 to a mental institution, can the state withhold that record from the federal NICS background check system since the federal firearms ban only applies at age 16 and up?
Plain-English summary
York County Probate Judge Carolyn Woodruff asked the AG a sharp practical question. South Carolina law (§ 23-31-1020) requires probate courts to send every mental health adjudication and commitment order to SLED within five days, and requires SLED to forward those records to the federal NICS background check system. But the federal Brady Act, 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(4), only prohibits firearms possession by people who were adjudicated mentally defective or committed at age 16 or older. So when she commits a 12-year-old, does SLED really need to feed that into the federal database, since the federal firearms ban will not apply to that child at age 16 unless there is a later qualifying event?
The AG, through Assistant Attorney General David Leggett, said yes. Section 23-31-1020(C) and (B) are mandatory and contain no age carve-out. SLED has no statutory authority to filter records based on the subject's age, and the AG sees no other statute that would supply that authority. Even though the Brady Act's firearms prohibition only attaches at 16, NICS is allowed to maintain and review information that does not itself trigger the prohibition. Asking SLED to make pre-screening judgments about which records "really" matter for the federal ban would inject discretion the legislature did not give it.
The opinion's bottom line is institutional: the General Assembly could amend § 23-31-1020 to give SLED that discretion, but until it does, the safer reading is that all probate court mental adjudications and commitments flow through to NICS, including those for children under 16.
What this means for you
If you are a probate judge
Continue submitting all mental adjudication and commitment orders to SLED within five days, regardless of the subject's age. The AG opinion confirms this is what the statute requires. You do not have a basis to withhold orders involving children under 16 just because the federal Brady Act ban will not apply to them at that age.
If you are SLED records staff
Forward to NICS every order received from a probate court under § 23-31-1020(C). Do not pre-screen by age. The AG opinion says the statute does not give you discretion to do so. The Brady Act's age-16 line is for NICS to apply at the point of a firearm transaction, not for SLED to apply at the point of submission.
If you are a parent or guardian of a committed child
Be aware that even commitments of children well under 16 are reported to SLED and then to NICS. If your child reaches adulthood and tries to buy a firearm, the prior commitment record will surface in the NICS check. Whether that record actually disqualifies depends on:
- Whether the commitment was when the child was under 16 (Brady prohibition does not attach to under-16 commitments alone).
- Whether there was a later qualifying adjudication or commitment at 16 or older.
- Whether your child was later adjudicated competent or had the disability removed under the federal NICS Improvement Amendments Act relief-from-disabilities procedure.
A juvenile mental health commitment is not necessarily a lifetime firearms bar, but the record exists and may need to be addressed through the relief-from-disabilities petition process.
If you are a clinician working with juvenile mental health commitments
Talk with families about the records-reporting consequences before the commitment hearing if you can. The fact that a commitment will be reported to a federal database is sometimes a surprise to parents who think juvenile records are sealed. South Carolina § 23-31-1020(C) explicitly says treatment and diagnosis information is not transmitted, only the fact of adjudication or commitment, but the fact itself goes through.
If you are a state legislator
The opinion identifies a legislative choice the General Assembly has not yet made: whether to give SLED age-based discretion when forwarding records to NICS. The AG explicitly says "[s]hould the General Assembly wish to give SLED discretion regarding which information is submitted to NICS, it may do so." A clean amendment to § 23-31-1020 could exempt under-16 commitments from forward-to-NICS reporting if that is the policy preference.
Common questions
Q: Does the federal Brady Act actually prohibit a 12-year-old's mental adjudication from disqualifying that person from owning a firearm later?
A: 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(4) prohibits firearms transfer to anyone "adjudicated as a mental defective or [who] has been committed to any mental institution at 16 years of age or older." The age-16 phrase is part of the Brady prohibition. A commitment at 12 alone does not by itself trigger the federal ban.
Q: Then why does SLED still send the under-16 commitment record?
A: Because § 23-31-1020(C) and (B) require it without an age exception. The state submission rule is broader than the federal disqualification rule. NICS can hold the record without it triggering a denial.
Q: Is the actual mental health diagnosis or treatment shared with NICS?
A: No. § 23-31-1020(C) explicitly says the court and SLED may not submit "information pertaining to a person's diagnosis or treatment." Only the fact of adjudication or commitment is reported.
Q: What happens when the person tries to buy a gun later?
A: NICS runs the check. If the only mental health record is a pre-16 commitment with no later qualifying adjudication, the under-16 record alone should not trigger a Brady denial under § 922(d)(4). If there is also a 16+ adjudication, that one does trigger the denial.
Q: Can the record be removed?
A: Federal law allows for relief-from-disabilities petitions in states that have qualifying programs (NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007). South Carolina has a relief-from-disabilities provision in § 23-31-1030. A successful petition can remove the federal firearms disability associated with a prior commitment.
Q: Does this apply to drug-related commitments?
A: The opinion expressly does not address drug-related commitments. Judge Woodruff's letter noted that the federal Brady provisions about controlled-substance use, 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), do not have an age threshold, so the question is different there.
Q: Could this rule change?
A: Yes, by legislation. The opinion explicitly invites the General Assembly to act if it wants SLED to filter by age. Some advocates have pushed for narrower juvenile reporting; others argue the current rule is appropriate.
Background and statutory framework
§ 23-31-1020 is South Carolina's vehicle for funneling state mental adjudication and commitment records into the federal NICS background check system established by the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act of 1993. The statute imposes three obligations:
- (B) When a court submits records by court order, SLED must transmit them to NICS.
- (C) The court must submit records to SLED within five days of each adjudication or commitment order. Diagnosis and treatment information is excluded.
- (D) SLED must keep the information confidential and may release it only to NICS for purposes directly related to the Brady Act, except as further provided in subsection (E).
The corresponding federal provision, 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(4), prohibits firearms transfers to anyone "adjudicated as a mental defective or [who] has been committed to any mental institution at 16 years of age or older." The age-16 phrase is what gave Judge Woodruff her practical question: if the federal disqualification does not attach, why funnel the record into NICS?
The AG's answer rests on plain-language statutory interpretation. Hodges v. Rainey (2000) and State v. Hudson (1999) confirm that legislative intent comes from the words chosen, and § 23-31-1020(B) and (C) say "shall" without any age qualification. Reading an age filter into the statute would require SLED to make case-by-case judgments about whether a record is "really" useful to NICS, which is the kind of discretion the legislature did not grant.
The opinion is also institutionally cautious. It treats the question as one for the legislature to decide, not for the executive branch to invent. If the General Assembly wants to spare under-16 commitments from federal database reporting, it knows how to amend the statute.
The juvenile commitment authority comes from §§ 44-24-10(1) and 44-24-140, which allow probate courts to involuntarily commit minors to mental institutions. Those statutes set the criteria for the underlying commitment; § 23-31-1020 separately governs the records-reporting consequences.
Citations and references
State statutes:
- S.C. Code § 23-31-1020 (Reporting mental adjudications to SLED/NICS)
- S.C. Code §§ 44-24-10, 44-24-140 (Juvenile mental health commitment)
Federal authorities:
- 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(4) (Brady Act mental health prohibition)
- Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, Pub. L. 103-159
Cases:
- Hodges v. Rainey, 341 S.C. 79, 533 S.E.2d 578 (2000) (statutory interpretation)
- State v. Hudson, 366 S.C. 237, 519 S.E.2d 577 (Ct. App. 1999) (plain language controls)
Source
- Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/opinion-on-whether-sled-may-share-information-regarding-juveniles-under-the-age-of-16-who-are-adjudicated-as-a-mental-defective-with-nics/
- Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/media/4t2f4gs2/woodruffc-os-11064-final-opinion-9-24-2025.pdf
Original opinion text
Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain. The linked PDF is authoritative.
ALAN WILSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL
September 24, 2025
The Honorable Carolyn E. Woodruff
- Judge of Probate
Post Office Box 219
York, South Carolina 29745
Dear Judge Woodruff:
Attorney General Alan Wilson referred your letter to the Opinions section for a response.
You seek an opinion on the following:
Where South Carolina law permits a Probate Court to involuntarily commit a
child under the age of sixteen to a mental institution pursuant to § 44-24-10 (1)
and § 44-24-140; and
Where South Carolina law requires a Probate Court to submit information
pertaining to all orders “related to adjudications and commitments” to the South
Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) for transmission to the National
Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) “for purposes directly
related to the Brady Act” pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 23-31-1020 (C) & (D);
and
Where the Brady Act itself prohibits the sale or disposal of firearms or
ammunition to a person “adjudicated as a mental defective or [who] has been
committed to any mental institution at 16 years of age or older,” 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(d)(4):
Is it proper for SLED to provide NICS with information regarding children
under the age 16 who have been committed to involuntary mental health
treatment at a mental institution?
You further note, “I do not question whether information pertaining to children under sixteen who
have been committed for drug use should be transmitted to NICS as 18 U.S.C. § 922 (d) and (d)(3)
have no ‘under sixteen’ reference akin to the mental health commitments.”
As discussed more fully below, we do not believe South Carolina law gives SLED
discretion to withhold information relating to the adjudication as a mental defective or commitment
to a mental institution from NICS because of the individual’s age.
Lis D9 424 200n Garcmceg <r ted c10-
134 BUR-734-3970 6 PACS RAILS 604-253-6283
The Honorable Carolyn E. Woodruff
Page 2
September 24, 2025
Law/Analysis
Following the adjudication as a mental defective or commitment to a mental institution,
Section 23-31-1020 provides:
(A) The Judicial Department and the Chief of SLED, or the chief's designee,
shall work in conjunction with a court of competent jurisdiction in
developing procedures for the collection and submission of information of
persons who have been adjudicated as a mental defective or who have been
committed to a mental institution.
(B) When a court submits this information to SLED by court order, SLED shall
transmit the information to the National Instant Criminal Background
Check System (NICS) established pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence
Protection Act of 1993, Pub. L. (pg.79) 103-159.
(C) The court shall submit the information to SLED by court order within five
days from the filing of each order related to adjudications and
commitments. Under no circumstances may the court or SLED submit
information pursuant to this section relating to a person’s diagnosis or
treatment.
(D) SLED shall keep information submitted by the court confidential, and that
information only may be disclosed to NICS pursuant to this section, for
purposes directly related to the Brady Act, or as provided in subsection (E),
S.C. Code Ann. § 23-31-1020 (2025).
When construing a statute, the primary goal is to understand and give effect to the intent
of the legislature. Hodges v. Rainey, 341 S.C. 79, 85, 533 S.E.2d 578, 581 (2000). Where possible,
legislative intent “should be ascertained primarily from the plain language of the statute.” State v.
Hudson, 366 S.C, 237, 246, 519 S.E.2d 577, 581 (Ct. App. 1999). We believe the plain language
of Section 23-31-1020 permits us to answer your question without resorting to other rules of
statutory construction.
Section 23-3 1-1020(C) requires the court to submit information relating to all adjudications
as a mental defect and commitments to a mental institution to SLED, regardless of the person’s
age. Similarly, § 23-31-1020(B) requires SLED to submit the information received from courts to
NICS, regardless of the person’s age. Both provisions are mandatory, and neither provision
provides for discretion based upon the person’s age.
As you note, § 23-31-1020(D) instructs SLED to keep information it receives relating to
adjudications and commitments confidential and limits SLED to providing information to NICS
The Honorable Carolyn E. Woodruff
Page 3
September 24, 2025
for purposes directly related to the Brady Act. While the Brady Act, in relevant part, only prohibits
the possession of a firearm by an individual who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has
been committed to any mental institution at 16 years of age or older, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(4), it
does not limit the information NICS may review in determining whether an individual is prohibited
from possessing a firearm.
Thus, it does not appear improper for SLED to provide to NICS information relating to all
adjudications as a mental defective and commitments to a mental institution, regardless of whether
that information leads to a determination that the individual is prohibited from possessing a firearm
or not. To interpret the statute otherwise would require SLED to first make a determination about
whether a person’s adjudication or commitment prohibits them possessing a. firearm before
exercising discretion based on that determination and, possibly, withholding information from
NICS. Section 23-31-1020 does not provide SLED with either the authority to determine whether
a particular adjudication or commitment prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm under
18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(4) or discretion to withhold information received from a court from NICS, and
I am unaware of another statute that does so.
Conclusion
Section 23-31-1020(C) requires probate courts to inform SLED of adjudications and
commitments within five days. Section 23-31-1020(D) then requires SLED to submit that
information to NICS. The statute does not provide for discretion in either of these steps. Should
the General Assembly wish to give SLED discretion regarding which information is submitted to
NICS, it may do so. Presently, I am unaware of any statutorily granted discretion which would
allow SLED to withhold information related to an adjudication or commitment from NICS based
on the age of the individual.
Sincerely, _
a Said Lagaet <P
(_Assisfant Attorney General
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
ne OP Caf EE
obert D. Cook
Solicitor General Emeritus