We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.
MEANWHILE, UP NORTH, MERE DRUG POSSESSION IS DANGEROUS
The 1st Circuit last week ruled that a Maine resident whose predicate felony relied on by the sentencing court was for mere possession of methamphetamine could be convicted of being an 18 USC § 922(g)(1) felon-in-possession consistent with the 2ndAmendment.
Jason argued that a conviction for mere possession did not let a court conclude that he posed “a special danger of misuse,” as described by the Supreme Court in last spring’s United States v. Hemani decision. But the Circuit ruled that Hemani focused on a “danger of misuse” of the gun, not just a danger of physical violence.
[T]he modern version of 922(g)(1) does not just serve the purpose of ‘crime control,’ as Levasseur contends… [Rather, i]n enacting predecessor statutes to 922(g)(1), Congress ‘determined that firearms must be kept away from persons, such as those convicted of serious crimes, who might be expected to misuse them… Indeed, the Supreme Court has described felon-in-possession bans as reflecting ‘Congress’ judgment that a convicted felon… is among the class of persons who should be disabled from dealing in or possessing firearms because of potential dangerousness…
This analysis underscores the importance of the interstate commerce issue raised in Squire. Using an “interstate commerce” hook for a statute, the purpose of which has nothing to do with regulating commerce but everything to do with crime control – a role that the Constitution assigns to the states – means that there is no practical limit to what Uncle Sam may want to criminalize.
And this decision takes that limitless power even further. Now, § 922(g)(1) has nothing to do with crime control but everything to do with Congress’s desire to regulate people who are deemed “dangerous.” Find the limiting principle is that legislative goal, if you can…
United States v. Levasseur, Case No. 24-1687, 2026 U.S.App. LEXIS 28377 (1st Cir. September 16, 2026)
~ Thomas L. Root