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

GUNNING FOR THE 2ND AMENDMENT

A Quick and Categorical Denial: While the 6th Circuit took a deep dive into post-Rahimi 2nd Amendment law last week – holding that an ex-felon convicted of a nonviolent offense may not be subject to 18 USC § 922(g)(1)’s limitation on possessing a gun or ammo – the 8th Circuit swatted away any argument that 18 USC § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional as applied to Darris Mull, a defendant with prior nonviolent drug felony convictions.

“Mull’s argument is foreclosed by 8th Circuit precedent,” the appellate court said, citing United States v. Jackson, a decision holding that even after United States v. Rahimi, 18 USC 922(g)(1) does “not violate the 2nd Amendment as applied to defendant whose predicate offenses were non-violent drug offenses.”

The Circuit also noted its decision two weeks ago in United States v. Cunningham that Jackson forecloses any argument that there must be a “felony-by-felony determinations regarding the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) as applied to a particular defendant”), the opposite of what the 6th Circuit held in its Williams holding.

United States v. Mull, Case No. 23-3424, 2024 U.S.App. LEXIS 21943 (8th Cir. Aug 29, 2024)

United States v. Jackson, Case No. 22-2870, 2024 U.S.App. LEXIS 19868 (8th Cir. Aug 8, 2024)

United States v. Cunningham, Case No. 22-1080, 2024 U.S.App. LEXIS 20715 (8th Cir. Aug 16, 2024)

5th Circuit Holds Alien-In-Possession is Constitutional But Sober Doper-in-Possession is Not: Last week, the 5th Circuit split on a pair of § 922(g) cases.

Jose Massina-Canto was convicted under 18 USC § 922(g)(5) of being an illegal alien in possession of a gun. He argued that § 922(g)(5) violates the 2nd Amendment under New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn v. Bruen and Rahimi.

The 5th held that because Bruen and Rahimi do not “unequivocally abrogate” Circuit precedent in United States v. Portillo-Munoz, “under this circuit’s rule of orderliness, we are bound to follow Portillo-Munoz.”

The § 922(g)(3) prohibition on people who use illegal drugs possessing guns is a different matter. In United States v. Connelly, the Circuit held that while § 922(g)(3) is not unconstitutional in all situations (such as some on meth shooting up farmers’ mailboxes), it is unconstitutional as applied to a defendant who uses weed and coke occasionally but is a “sober citizen not presently under an impairing influence and… [not] was intoxicated when she was arrested.”

The 5th said that by regulating a defendant based on habitual or occasional drug use, § 922(g)(3) imposed a far greater burden on her 2nd Amendment rights than history and the tradition of firearms regulation can support.

United States v. Medina-Cantu, Case No. 23-40336, 2024 U.S.App. LEXIS 21730 (5th Cir. Aug 27, 2024)

United States v. Portillo-Munoz, 643 F.3d 437 (5th Cir. 2011)

United States v. Connelly, Case No. 23-50312, 2024 U.S.App. LEXIS 21866 (5th Cir. Aug. 28, 2024)

Kansas District Court Holds § 922(o) on Possessing Machine Gun is Unconstitutional ‘As Applied’: Complaining that the statutory definition of a machine gun is “extremely broad,” enough to encompass aircraft-mounted automatic cannon to a small stun gun to a BB gun that shoots multiple rounds of projectiles using compressed air,” a district court ruled that 18 USC § 922(o) – that outlaws possession of a “machinegun” (and only the U.S. Code calls a machine gun a “machinegun”) – is unconstitutional as applied to “bearable arms” such as defendant Tamori Morgan’s select-fire AR-15 and his Glock giggle switch (that makes a Glock pistol full auto).

The court rejected the Government’s attempt to show that 18th-century law provides a basis for § 922(o). Those laws banned breaching the peace with unusual or dangerous weapons, but unlike those laws, the Court ruled, § 922(o) “says nothing about the manner in which machineguns are carried or displayed. Instead, § 922(o) criminalizes the mere possession of such weapons without regard to how the possessor uses them.”

The Court also rejected the Government’s argument that the 2nd Amendment “would allow weapons to be prohibited solely on the basis that they are ‘dangerous and unusual” or ‘highly unusual in society at large.’”

The Court noted that possessing a machine gun is not illegal, but rather only possessing a machine gun that is not registered:

There are over 740,000 legally registered machineguns in the United States today,” the Court said. “Machineguns have been in existence for well over a century. While the federal government has regulated transfer and possession of such weapons since passage of the National Firearms Act in 1934,” even now, “it is perfectly legal for a person who has not been divested of his firearm rights under some other provision of law to acquire and possess a machinegun… In that sense, machineguns are not unusual. The government fails to address these facts, and thus fails to meet its burden to demonstrate that possession of the types of weapons at issue in this case are lawfully prohibited under the 2nd Amendment.

On a Reload podcast, 2nd Amendment attorney Matt Larosiere predicted the case is quite likely to be appealed and unlikely to win at the next level, but nevertheless the Morgan decision “would help him and other gun-rights activists in future cases against the ban as well as other portions of the NFA.”

United States v. Morgan, Case No. 23-10047, 2024 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 149550 (D. Kan. Aug 21, 2024)

The Reload, Podcast: Gun-Rights Lawyer Matt Larosiere on a Federal Judge Ruling Against the Machinegun Ban (September 1, 2024)

– Thomas L. Root