Tag Archives: 18 usc 922

DOJ Seeks Expedited Certiorari on Rahimi – Update for March 23, 2023

Leave a comment

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

DOJ SEEKS CERTIORARI ON 5TH CIRCUIT RAHIMI DECISION

bad driver230323You may recall Zack Rahimi, a man who responded to the all-too-common embarrassment of having his credit card declined in the usual way. After being unable to use plastic to pay for his Whataburger Patty Melt (ranked as the chain’s best sandwich, by the way), Zack understandably drew his handgun and opened fire on houses, police cars, and pretty much anything else in front of the muzzle of his pistol. He even shot at bad drivers (something we’ve all had the urge to do from time to time).

At the time, Zack was subject to a civil protection order for having stalked an ex-girlfriend. After the locals got done charging him for felony hangry-ness, the Feds weighed in, charging him with possessing a firearm while being subject to a domestic violence protection order, a violation of 18 USC § 922(g)(8). But in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision last June in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, the 5th Circuit ruled that prohibiting people from possessing guns because of domestic violence protection orders violates the 2nd Amendment. The Circuit said:

The question presented in this case is not whether prohibiting the possession of firearms by someone subject to a domestic violence restraining order is a laudable policy goal,” the Circuit said. “The question is whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), a specific statute that does so, is constitutional under the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. In the light of N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen… it is not.

stalking230323The government has now filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, and has done so quickly. The government could have sought en banc review, asking the entire 26-judge court to consider the issue. Instead, the government explained in its petition for writ of cert, due to “the significant disruptive consequences of the Fifth Circuit’s decision, the government is filing this petition for a writ of certiorari on a highly expedited schedule — a little more than two weeks after the issuance of the Fifth Circuit’s final amended opinion — in order to allow the Court to consider the petition before it recesses for the summer.”

The government argues in its petition that the appellate decision “overlooked the strong historical evidence supporting the general principle that the government may disarm dangerous individuals… Although courts interpreting the 2nd Amendment must consider text, history, and tradition, they should not focus on whether the law at issue has ‘a historical twin,’” the government contends “To the contrary, this Court emphasized that ‘even if a modern-day regulation is not a dead ringer for historical precursors, it still may be analogous enough to pass constitutional muster.’”

doitnow160817Writing in his Sentencing Law and Policy blog, Ohio State University law professor Doug Berman wonders whether the Supreme Court will be amenable to the government’s request to “take up the case on an expedited basis even before there is a direct circuit split.” He suggests that “expedited” may have a more glacial meeting at the high court: “I suspect the Justices will get back to these Second Amendment matters pretty soon. But ‘pretty soon’ in Supreme Court timelines does not really mean ‘soon’…”

There have been District Court decisions elsewhere that have relied on Bruen to gut § 922(g) limitations on gun possession by people under indictment, possession of guns with obliterated serial numbers, and possession of guns by marijuana users.  In the 3rd Circuit, the appeals court is examining whether the § 922(g) proscription on gun possession by people with felony convictions can survive Bruen.  And on Monday, a U.S. District Court in the Central District of California struck down the state’s Unsafe Handgun Act – which required all handguns sold in the state to have three features which not a single handgun in the world has – as unconstitutional under Bruen.

Perhaps the legal tsunami of attacks on § 922 alone – even absent a circuit split – will force SCOTUS’s hand and bring us another gun decision sooner rather than later.

United States v. Rahimi, Case No. 21-11001, — F.4th —, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 5114 (5th Cir., March 2, 2023) (amended opinion)

Petition for Writ of Certiorari, United States v. Rahimi, Case No. 22-915 (Supreme Court, filed March 17, 2023)

N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, — U.S. —, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 213 L. Ed. 2d 387  (2022)

The Hill, DOJ asks SCOTUS to review ruling that overturned firearm ban for those with domestic violence restraining orders (March 18, 2023)

Sentencing Law and Policy, With DOJ asking, will SCOTUS quickly take up a post-Bruen case on gun possession by thoe subject to DV orders? (March 20, 2023)

Boland v. Bonta, Case No. SACV 22-01421-CJC (March 20, 2023)

Thomas L. Root

District Court Decision Questions Everything in 18 USC § 922 – Update for September 26, 2022

Leave a comment

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

BEGINNING OF THE END FOR 18 USC 922?

Notguns170330A remarkable district court decision from Western District of Texas last week held that 18 USC § 922(n), a subsection that prohibits people who are under indictment  from possessing guns or ammunition that have traveled in interstate commerce, is unconstitutional.

District Judge David Counts dismissed an 18 USC § 922(n) charge against Jose Quiroz, who was facing a Texas burglary indictment when he tried to buy a .22-caliber version of the Colt Model 1911 handgun.

In a 25-page opinion filed in Pecos, Texas, Counts ruled that in the wake of the Supreme Court’s June decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, despite “valid public policy and safety concerns,” the statute had to be considered under a historical analysis alone. He held that “[a]lthough not exhaustive, the Court’s historical survey finds little evidence that § 922(n) — which prohibits those under felony indictment from obtaining a firearm — aligns with this Nation’s historical tradition. As a result, this Court holds that § 922(n) is unconstitutional.”

gun160711The Court said that the “Second Amendment is not a ‘second class right.’ No longer can courts balance away a constitutional right. After Bruen, the Government must prove that laws regulating conduct covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text align with this Nation’s historical tradition.”

What makes the decision interesting is not just the detailed historical analysis that argues against the constitutionality of § 992(n). In addition, the decision casts substantial doubt on whether 18 USC § 922(g) – which prohibits people convicted of felonies from possessing guns or ammo – is still constitutional in light of Bruen.

Bruen held that “when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government… must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms….”

manyguns190423Judge Counts reviewed the history of laws prohibiting felons from possessing guns: “By the mid-1920s, only six states had laws banning concealed carry by someone convicted of a crime involving a concealed weapon. And zero states banned possession of long guns based on a prior conviction… Whether this Nation has a history of disarming felons is arguably unclear—it certainly isn’t clearly “longstanding.” And what’s even more unclear—and still unproven—is a historical justification for disarming those indicted, but not yet convicted, of any crime.”

The Quiroz opinion is only a district court holding and is not binding precedent on other courts (even in its home 5th Circuit). However, the decision is written with detail that is extraordinary for a district court case and may have a lot of persuasive authority for other district courts (and even courts of appeal). The case also suggests that Bruen, only three months old, could have a major effect on 18 USC § 922.

Even before Bruen, Supreme Court Justice Amy Barrett – when she was still on the 7th Circuit – argued in her dissent in Kanter v. Barr that the felon-in-possession statute could not constitutionally applied to people with nonviolent felony convictions:

History is consistent with common sense: it demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns. But that power extends only to people who are dangerous. Founding-era legislatures did not strip felons of the right to bear arms simply because of their status as felons… In 1791 — and for well more than a century afterward — legislatures disqualified categories of people from the right to bear arms only when they judged that doing so was necessary to protect the public safety.

Anyone filing direct appeals or post-conviction motions in cases where they were convicted of 18 USC § 922 offenses should seriously consider raising a constitutionality issue in light of Bruen.

United States v. Quiroz, Case No 22-cr-00104, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168329 (W.D.Tex., September 19, 2022)

New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 213 L. Ed. 2d 387 (2022)

Associated Press, Judge holds gun ban for felony defendants unconstitutional (September 19, 2022)

Sentencing Law and Policy, District Court declares § 922(n), which criminalizes a person under indictment from receiving a firearm, to be unconstitutional (September 20, 2022)

Kanter v. Barr, 919 F.3d 437 (7th Cir., 2019)

– Thomas L. Root