Supreme Court May Walk Back Bruen, But Constitutionality of 922(g)(1) Still Up In The Air – Update for November 13, 2023 | Legal Information Services Associates LLC

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

HARD CASES MAKE BAD LAW

The Supreme Court appears poised to refine the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen Second Amendment test for the constitutionality of gun laws, adding a “dangerousness” element that – surprisingly enough – may help a lot of people convicted of felon-in-possession crimes.

SCOTUS heard argument last week in United States v. Rahimi, the case that challenged whether subsection (8) of 18 USC 922(g) – that bans people subject to domestic protection orders from possessing guns – is constitutional under the Second Amendment.

Mr. Rahimi fired off a few rounds at a fast-food joint when his friend's credit card was declined. — Mr. Rahimi fired off a few rounds at a fast-food joint when his friend’s credit card was declined.

Defendant Zackey Rahimi was a bad actor. While under a domestic protection order for stalking an ex-girlfriend, he ran amok in December 2020, shooting up houses, blasting away at bad drivers, firing at a police car, and even loosing off five rounds into the air when a credit card was declined at a Whataburger. In short, he was the government’s dream defendant for its position that Uncle Sam has the right to keep some people away from guns.

And the government needed a dream defendant. The Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision adopted a new standard, specifically that when the Second Amendment covers one’s conduct (such as possessing a firearm), the government can limit that conduct only by showing “that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.” Bruen thus superseded the Court’s long-standing practice of allowing the government to weigh its interest in public safety against the possibility of imposing a limitation on Second Amendment rights.

Last week’s argument suggests the Court may write some “public safety” back into the Bruen standard. The government argued that the “destabilizing consequences” of the 5th Circuit’s Rahimi ruling require the Court to uphold 18 USC § 922(g)(8) based on the general tradition of Congress taking guns from people who are not responsible, law-abiding citizens – “for example, people who had been loyal to the British government during the Revolutionary War, felons, and drug addicts,” as Amy Howe put it in SCOTUSBlog.

But the justices puzzled over what “responsible” or “law-abiding” citizen meant exactly. “Responsibility,” Chief Justice John Roberts told the government, is “a very broad concept.” Justice Amy Coney Barrett agreed that domestic violence is dangerous. But in more marginal cases, she asked, how does the government show that other kinds of behavior are dangerous?

The government argued that “responsibility” is “intrinsically tied to the danger you would present if you have access to firearms.” The government told the Court that it can disarm “dangerous individuals” without violating the Second Amendment.

Roberts clearly thought Zack had no business possessing a gun: “You don’t have any doubt that your client’s a dangerous person, do you?” he asked Zack’s counsel. Justice Samuel Alito wondered whether Rahimi’s position was that “except for someone who has been convicted of a felony, a person may not be prohibited from possessing a firearm in his home?” Justice Elena Kagan interpreted Rahimi’s position as being that the government had to show a historical regulation “essentially target[ed] the same kind of conduct as the regulation under review” to be constitutional.

Writing in his Sentencing Law and Policy blog, Ohio State University law professor Doug Berman said,

There seems to be a majority of Justices (and perhaps even all the Justices) who are prepared to rework the Bruen originalist approach to the Second Amendment to uphold the federal criminal firearm prohibition in Rahimi. But I… was especially struck by the claim by Rahimi’s lawyer that there were no complete criminal bans on the possession of guns by certain people until 1968. If originalism as a mode of constitutional interpretation really cared about history, that would seem to be a quite significant bit of history for resolving this case.

The Rahimi issue is whether people subject to domestic protection orders are dangerous. But if SCOTUS focuses on “dangerousness,” that suggests that maybe people disqualified from owning firearms because of prior convictions – like Bryan Range in the 3rd Circuit case now awaiting a decision on certiorari – convicted of nonviolent crimes may still benefit from Bruen.