Tag Archives: 18 usc 922(g)

St. Vincent Must Remain Unarmed, 10th Says – Update for February 18, 2025

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.

ADDING TO THE 922(g)(1) MAYHEM…

melyndavincent250218You may remember Melynda Vincent, a woman convicted of bank fraud 15 years ago for writing some bad checks while in the throes of drug addiction. Since then, Melynda cleaned up, graduated from a drug treatment program, earned an undergraduate degree and two graduate degrees, and founded the Utah Harm Reduction Coalition – a nonprofit organization for drug treatment and criminal-justice reform – and a mental health counseling service, Life Changes Counseling.

She’s a poster child for rehabilitation. No, more than that, maybe for sainthood, someone who turned a horrific past and debilitating addiction into something that will benefit countless people (and make society safer).  A therapist who has ‘walked the walk’ the people she counsels are on right now.

In 2021, Melynda sued to be allowed to own a gun. No matter that she might be a saint. The 10th Circuit held that 18 USC § 922(g)(1)’s felon-in-possession prohibition on gun possession was constitutional as applied to her. After all, she was a felon and that was the end of the story.

At the time, Melynda took her argument to the Supreme Court. SCOTUS sat on her petition for certiorari (along with the government’s request that the high court review the 3d Circuit’s Range decision), and then finally GVR’d her, sending the case back to the 10th for reconsideration in light of United States v. Rahimi.

‘Hint, hint,’ SCOTUS seemed to be saying to the Circuit, ‘take a look at her ‘dangerousness’ before you rubber-stamp a denial based on pre-Rahimi law.

Last week, the 10th ignored the hint. It held that despite New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn v. Bruen and despite Rahimi, its 2009 decision in United States v. McCane that § 922(g)(1) was constitutional when applied to any felon in any situation was still good law. The Circuit relied “on the Supreme Court’s 2008 statement in District of Columbia v. Heller that it was not ‘cast[ing] doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons’” and Rahimi’s recognition of “the presumptive lawfulness of these longstanding prohibitions,” quoting Heller.

“Longstanding?” Prior to 1961, no federal law would have prohibited someone in Melynda’s situation from possessing guns. As the first Range opinion noted, “modern laws have no longstanding analogue in or national history and tradition of firearm regulation.”

The 10th noted that the 4th, the 8th and the 11th Circuits also “have held that Rahimi doesn’t abrogate their earlier precedents upholding the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1).”

stvincentB250218Melynda is as sympathetic a felon-in-possession petitioner as anyone could find, maybe even more so than Bryan Range (who, after all, had one ticket for fishing without a license ticket in the 25 years since his food stamp conviction). If § 922(g)(1)‘s felon-in-possession prohibition does not violate the 2nd Amendment as applied to St. Melynda Vincent, the “presumptive lawfulness of these longstanding prohibitions” must be an irrebutable one.

Expect Melynda’s request for Supreme Court review to drop onto the SCOTUS docket before Memorial Day.

Vincent v. Bondi, Case No 21-4121, 2025 USAppLEXIS 3179 (10th Cir. Feb 11, 2025)

– Thomas L. Root

Dangerousness (and More) and 922(g) Constitutionality – Update for February 14, 2025

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.

3RD CIRCUIT’S TROUBLING SUGGESTIONS ON 922(g)(1)

Following its en banc Range v Attorney General II decision– that the 18 USC 922(g)(1) felon-in-possession (F-I-P) statute violates the 2nd Amendment where it prohibits a person with a single disqualifying but nonviolent fraud conviction 25 years before from owning a gun – the 3d Circuit earlier this week remanded a similar case for the trial court to inquire into whether the petitioner had a history of dangerousness.

dice161221Restaurateur George Pitsilides’ hobby is high-stakes poker, an avocation that extended into sports betting and hosting illegal poker tournaments. He was convicted 25 years ago of placing sports bets with a Pennsylvania bookie – law-breaking that must seem quaint to anyone watching Eli and Peyton Manning on the Fanduel ad during the Superbowl – conduct that disqualifies him from gun possession under the F-I-P statute.

In 2019, he sued the government for the right to own a gun, arguing among other things that the F-I-P statute violated the 2nd Amendment as applied to his situation. While the case was on appeal, the Supreme Court handed down decisions in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen and United States v. Rahimi, cases “which effected a sea change in 2nd Amendment law,” as the 3rd Circuity put it, and required that a record be made of George’s “dangerousness.”

nickdanger220426The Circuit held that while Rahimi and Range II “did not purport to comprehensively define the metes and bounds of justifiable burdens on the 2nd Amendment right, they do, at a minimum, show that disarmament is justified as long as a felon continues to “present a special danger of misusing firearms… in other words, when he would likely pose a physical danger to others if armed.” The appellate court observed that

[a]s evidenced by our opinion in Range II, the determination that a felon does not currently present a special danger of misusing firearms may depend on more than just the nature of his prior felony…. [W]e agree with the 6th Circuit: Courts adjudicating as-applied challenges to 922(g)(1) must consider a convict’s entire criminal history and post-conviction conduct indicative of dangerousness, along with his predicate offense and the conduct giving rise to that conviction, to evaluate whether he meets the threshold for continued disarmament. As Range II illustrated, consideration of intervening conduct plays a crucial role in determining whether application of 922(g)(1) is constitutional under the 2nd Amendment… Indeed, such conduct may be highly probative of whether an individual likely poses an increased risk of “physical danger to others” if armed.

The Circuit ruled that “while bookmaking and pool selling offenses may not involve inherently violent conduct, they may nonetheless, depending on the context and circumstances, involve conduct that endangers the physical safety of others. That assessment necessarily requires individualized factual findings.”

So what is so troubling about this ruling? A couple of things. First, the Pitsilides court described the en banc Range II decision as turning on several factors, including having “lived an essentially law-abiding life since” the 25-year-old crime, had no history of violence, “had never knowingly violated 922(g)(1)’s prohibition while subject to it, posed no risk of danger to the public, and then filed a declaratory judgment action seeking authorization to bear arms prospectively.” The holding suggests that whether the F-I-P statute can constitutionally be applied to a defendant depends on him or her first seeking government permission (in the form of a declaratory ruling) before possessing a gun.

f**kdraft250214Imagine this standard being applied to free speech: A state law making the wearing clothing emblazoned with the phrase “f**ck the draft” a crime because of the exhibition of an obscene word would violate the 1st Amendment only if the wearer had not violated the unconstitutional statute to begin with and had won a judicial holding that the statute was unconstitutional before donning the offending shirt. (The shirt was the featured garb in Cohen v. California).

The second problem is with the squishiness of the term “dangerousness.” As Ohio State law professor Doug Berman aptly described the issue in his Sentencing Law and Policy blog earlier this week:

I have dozens of questions about how a “dangerousness” standard is to apply in the 2nd Amendment context, and I will flag just a few here.

For starters, there are many folks who were clearly dangerous, and were convicted of possibly dangerous crimes in their twenties, who thereafter mature and are no clearly longer dangerous years later. Do these folks have 2nd Amendment rights? More broadly, data show that women as a class are much less likely to commit violent crimes than men, so does this suggest women with criminal records are more likely to have 2nd Amendment rights than men because they are, generally speaking, less dangerous? And, procedurally, who has burden on the issue of “dangerousness” in civil and criminal cases? I assume Pitsilides will have to prove by a preponderance that he is not dangerous in this civil case that he brought, but does the Government now need to prove dangerousness beyond a reasonable doubt in every 18 USC 922(g) criminal prosecution?

The F-I-P “as applied” 2nd Amendment battle is just warming up.

Pitsilides v. Barr, Case No. 21-3320, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 3007 (3d Cir. Feb. 10, 2025)

Sentencing Policy and Law, Third Circuit panel states “Second Amendment’s touchstone is dangerousness” when remanding rights claim by person with multiple gambling-related offenses (February 12, 2025)

– Thomas L. Root

Trump Executive Order Hints At Felon-In-Possession About Face – Update for February 10, 2025

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.

PRESIDENT (AND FELON) TRUMP MAY CARE ABOUT § 922(g)(1)

OK, President Trump is a convicted felon. But millions of Americans know how easy it is to end up with that label.

Because Trump is now a guy surrounded by men and women with guns but not himself allowed to touch one due to 18 USC § 922(g)(1) – the felon-in-possession statute – I have been speculating for a few months about whether his personal stake in being able to again pack his personalized “Trump .45” Glock would cause him to do something about the issue of F-I-P constitutionality.

Trumpgun250113The 3d Circuit has underscored its view that § 922(g)(1) can be unconstitutional as applied to a nonviolent felon (Range v. Attorney General) and the 6th Circuit has hinted that it feels the same (United States v. Williams). The 9th Circuit said as much in United States v. Duarte, but that holding is on en banc review and probably won’t survive. Some other circuits have gone the other way.

After New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen and United States v. Rahimi, there’s been little doubt that the “as applied” 2nd Amendment question that swirling around the F-I-P statute will reach the Supreme Court sooner rather than later. Likewise, the Dept of Justice’s intractable opposition to any loosening of gun restrictions has been a feature of every court challenge of § 922(g), not just F-I-P but also drug user in possession, person-under-indictment in possession and domestic abuser-in-possession.

trumpglock45250210Last Friday, Trump issued an executive order that strongly hints that the DOJ will soon be changing its views. The EO directed Pam Bondi, the new Attorney General, to “examine all orders, regulations, guidance, plans, international agreements, and other actions of executive departments and agencies (agencies) to assess any ongoing infringements of the 2nd Amendment rights of our citizens and present a proposed plan of action to the President… to protect the 2nd Amendment rights of all Americans.” The EO specifically orders her to review “[t]he positions taken by the United States in any and all ongoing and potential litigation that affects or could affect the ability of Americans to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.”

This does not mean that the DOJ will drop its opposition to any or all of the varied “prohibited person in possession” issue raised by § 922(g), even whether F-I-P is constitutional as applied to a nonviolent defendant whose convictions are a quarter century old like Bryan Range. But it is a clear signal that the next SCOTUS § 922(g) case may feature a much kinder, gentler DOJ that we’ve seen so far.

White House, Executive Order: Protecting Second Amendment Rights (February 7, 2024)

Range v. Attorney General, 124 F.4th 218 (3d Cir. 2024)

United States v. Williams, 113 F.4th 637 (6th Cir. 2024)

United States v. Duarte, 108 F.4th 786 (9th Cir. 2024)

– Thomas L. Root

2nd Amendment May Be Gunning for Felon-In-Possession – Update for January 13, 2025

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.

IS SCOTUS TEEING UP § 922(g)(1)?

What would you call someone who is prohibited from possessing a gun but is surrounded by a heavily armed detail?

For now, you’d be right to say it’s a federal inmate on a U.S. Marshal Service prisoner transport. But after next week, you’d be equally correct to say, “President Trump.”

Trumpgun250113

After his January 10 New York sentencing, Trump has something in common with the approximate 10 million Americans prohibited from possessing guns by 18 USC § 922(g)(1), the so-called felon-in-possession statute. Although convicted of 34 of the most anodyne felonies imaginable – paying off a porn star to keep an embarrassing story quiet during his presidential campaign and then hiding the payment as a “legal fee” – Trump is forever prevented from having a gun or ammo by the F-I-P statute, no different from a murderer or drug dealer or tax evader or food stamp fraudster.

This is important because the issue of whether § 922(g)(1) can ban everyone ever convicted of a felony from possessing guns consistent with the 2nd Amendment – a question that is increasingly splitting the federal circuits – may be on the cusp of being accepted for Supreme Court review.

F-I-P “probably does more to combat gun violence than any other federal law,” Justice Samuel Alito proclaimed in his 2019 Rehaif v. United States dissent. “It prohibits the possession of firearms by, among others, convicted felons, mentally ill persons found by a court to present a danger to the community, stalkers, harassers, perpetrators of domestic violence and illegal aliens.”

gunfreezone170330Justice Alito’s soaring if evidence-free endorsement of § 922(g) came several years before the Supreme Court’s 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen and last June’s United States v. Rahimi decisions suggested that whatever the efficacy of § 922(g), its constitutionality was dubious.

After Rehaif, SCOTUS remanded a host of pending § 922(g) petitions for review for application of its standards. Now, many of those cases – and several fresh ones – are coming back to the Supreme Court. In one of those cases, United States v. Daniels, the 5th Circuit ruled in 2023 that § 922(g)(3) – that prohibited drug users from possessing guns – violated the 2nd Amendment. The government sought SCOTUS review, and the high court remanded the court for reconsideration in light of Rahimi. Last week, the 5th Circuit upheld its earlier decision that Mr. Daniels, although using pot about every other day, could not be prevented from owning a gun under the 2nd Amendment when Bruen and Rahimi standards were applied to his situation.

Last week, The New York Times wrote about the coming battle over whether the F-I-P statute comports with the 2nd Amendment, and – if so – to what extent. The Times observed that Bruen and Rahimi “interpreted the 2nd Amendment in a way that puts major parts of the [F-I-P] law at risk and has left lower courts in, as one challenger put it, a ‘state of disarray.’”

Bruen and Rahimi held that if the conduct addressed by a gun law falls within the 2nd Amendment’s protection – like possession of a gun or ammo certainly does – then the law that regulates that conduct must comport with the principles underlying the 2nd Amendment.

“For example,” Rahimi explained, “if laws at the founding regulated firearm use to address particular problems, that will be a strong indicator that contemporary laws imposing similar restrictions for similar reasons fall within a permissible category of regulations. Even when a law regulates arms-bearing for a permissible reason, though, it may not be compatible with the right if it does so to an extent beyond what was done at the founding. And when a challenged regulation does not precisely match its historical precursors, “it still may be analogous enough to pass constitutional muster.”

angels170726The question is no mere angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin argument. Over 7,000 people were convicted under § 922(g)(1) in FY 2022. The last head count (taken in 2010) found more than 19 million Americans have felony convictions and are thus disqualified from possessing guns under § 922(g)(1).

Last month, the 3rd and 4th Circuits issued opinions on the constitutionality of F-I-P, with each coming out differently on the issue. An en banc decision in United States v. Duarte is pending in the 9th Circuit. Today, SCOTUS denied review to Dubois v. United States, where the defendant was convicted of F-I-P for a 10-year-old marijuana possession felony. Instead, the Supreme Court GVR-ed the case for 11th Circuit reconsideration in light of Rahimi. 

whac-a-mole922-250113Regardless of SCOTUS action in Dubois, the § 922(g)(1) issue is ripe for review. Even before any government request that may be filed asking for Supreme Court review of Range v. Attorney General, there are no fewer than 15 petitions for certiorari pending on F-I-P constitutionality. Ohio State law professor Doug Berman, writing in his Sentencing Law and Policy blog, said last week, “[T]here is a wide array of churning lower-court litigation assailing gun restrictions well beyond federal criminal prohibitions in 18 USC § 922(g), and so it is certainly possible that the Justices might take up disputes over restrictions on types of guns or other regulatory matters before addressing federal possession prohibitions again. In addition, because the incoming Trump administration could be more supportive of a more expansive view of the 2nd Amendment, the Supreme Court’s approach to § 922(g) disputes might get influence by some new advocacy coming soon from the Justice Department.”

Certainly, the fact that the new President himself is disqualified from possessing any of the nearly 5 million guns owned by the very government he will again command in a week may influence the position his Dept. of Justice takes in any Supreme Court F-I-P litigation.

New York Times, Courts in ‘State of Disarray’ on Law Disarming Felons (January 6, 2025)

New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022)

Rehaif v. United States, 588 U.S. 225 (2019)

United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2004)

United States v. Daniels, Case No. 22-60596, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 208 (5th Cir. January 6, 2025)

Sentencing Law and Policy, What kind of Second Amendment case will be next for SCOTUS after Bruen and Rahimi? (January 8, 2025)

– Thomas L. Root

Government Tries to Cabin 5th Circuit on Felon-In-Possession Ruling – Update for December 3, 2024

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.

5TH CIRCUIT REVERSES DISTRICT COURT ON 922(g) DISMISSAL

mustread241203Just last week, I had someone send me a forgettable decision by a backwater Federal district court in a circuit a thousand miles away from where the prisoner had been convicted. Suggesting that the case made his pending motion a dead-bang winner, he demanded, “You have to read this case!”

No, I don’t. The only court whose opinions are binding everywhere is the Supreme Court. A court of appeals decision is binding only in its own circuit and then only when the court publishes the decision. A district court’s opinion binds no one outside of the case it was issued in (called the law of the case doctrine, something we’ll take up at another time).

That doesn’t keep people from touting the latest LEXIS case from the Jerkwater, Kansas, federal district court as though Moses had carried it down the slopes of Mt. Sinai. Judges themselves don’t help: a district court especially is all too glad to cite some nonbinding case in support of its own conclusion without taking care to note that the other opinion is what lawyers call “persuasive authority.”

peppermintmocha24120A good “persuasive authority” decision and $6.25 will get you a Peppermint Mocha at Starbucks for a limited time. In fact, a Court of Appeals decision – if it is not “published” – is nonbinding on other panels of the same court. A “published” decision, on the other hand, cannot be reversed unless the court does it on an en banc rehearing (or it’s nullified by a Supreme Court case).

So what? The 5th Circuit, which has become notorious at the Dept of Justice for anti-922(g) decisions, last week reversed a decision by US District Court Judge Carlton Reeves – whose opinions on federal criminal law are especially important because his side gig is serving as chairman of the U.S. Sentencing Commission – that defendant Jesse Bullock’s 18 USC § 922(g) felon-in-possession indictment should be dismissed because of the Supreme Court’s 2022 New York State Rifle & Piston Association v. Bruen decision. Judge Reeves found that in the wake of Bruen, prohibiting felons from having guns violated the 2nd Amendment.

guns200304The 5th held that Jesse’s many prior felony convictions, which included aggravated assault and manslaughter (for shooting an unarmed bar bouncer and “firing a ‘barrage of bullets’ into a nearby crowd,” killing a 19-year-old passerby) meant that he could be banned from possessing guns in light of last summer’s SCOTUS opinion in United States v. Rahimi (an appeal from this Circuit’s holding that the defendant could have a gun despite a domestic protection order and a violent history). The 5th found that “a ban on Bullock’s ability to possess a firearm ‘fits neatly’ within our Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

Last week’s decision was unpublished, meaning that it would not bind another Circuit panel considering the same issue (or even the same person if he possessed a gun on another occasion). However, the day after the unpublished opinion was issued, the Dept. of Justice filed a motion asking the 5th to publish the case, arguing that an opinion identifying “aggravated assault and manslaughter as among the predicate offenses that district courts may look to in assessing whether a defendant’s use of a firearm may be prohibited… has potential significance in other cases for which these previous offenses serve as § 922(g)(1) predicates.”

Jesse has opposed the motion, contending that the opinion is a ho-hum application of Rahimi, not worth the ink figuratively needed to publish. “This Court addressed the merits of the district court decision without requesting supplemental briefing” after Rahimi was decided. “No oral argument was held. If published, the panel’s decision would preclude other panels from considering the issue with the benefit of more robust briefing and argument.”

boxedin241203Jesse’s last argument is most to the point. The government fears the 5th, with the benefit of a lot of briefing and focus, might issue another Rahimi-type decision. Getting a summary holding that violent prior convictions disqualify someone from gun possession would box in the Circuit, requiring another Rahimi-type decision to be en banc.

United States v. Bullock, Case No. 23-60408, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 29938 (5th Cir., November 25, 2024)

– Thomas L. Root

6th Circuit Applies Williams to § 922 Cases – Update for October 18, 2024

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.

A CINCINNATI GUN SHOW

The 6th Circuit last week wasted no time finding practical applications for its August holding in United States v. Williams that while 922(g) may not categorically disqualify everyone within its prohibitions on firearms ownership, it does when dangerousness is involved.

gunshow241018Williams established that felons are among “the people” protected by the 2nd Amendment. Williams held that consistent with the 2nd Amendment, “our nation’s history and tradition demonstrate that Congress may disarm individuals they believe are dangerous,” and so “most applications of § 922(g)(1) are constitutional.” Applying that standard to defendant Williams, the panel concluded that the defendant’s § 922(g)(1) felon-in-possession conviction was constitutional in light of his extensive criminal record, which included aggravated robbery and attempted murder.

After Williams, defendants may still argue that their facts make them an individualized exception to the application of § 922(g)(1). That’s what Christopher Goins argued. He was on probation for a state felony when he had a friend buy him two AR-15 frame pistols at a gun store. Chris took possession of the firearms in the gun store parking lot in full view of surveillance cameras.

At the time Chris took delivery of the gun, he had multiple convictions for crimes punishable by imprisonment for more than one year, including a DUI, driving under the influence on a suspended license, and possession of drugs. A state court had initially sentenced Chris to one year of jail time for each of the three offenses, but it then withheld the sentence and instead gave Chris to 120 days of imprisonment and four years of probation. One condition of probation was that Chris could not possess a weapon of any kind.

The 6th upheld Chris’s § 922(g)(1) conviction, finding that the nation’s “historical tradition demonstrates that Congress may lawfully disarm probationers like Goins, who (1) are under a firearm possession limitation as a condition of probation, (2) are under a relatively short probation sentence for a dangerous crime, and (3) whose repeated and recent actions show a likelihood of future dangerous conduct.”

nickdanger220426The same day, another 6th Circuit panel ruled that Jaylin Gore’s conviction for possessing a stolen gun (18 USC 922(j)) and receipt or transfer of a gun while under indictment (922(n)) was consistent with the 2nd Amendment.

The Circuit ruled that “there is ample historical support for prohibitions on the purchase or receipt of stolen goods and “there is no indication that firearms were exempt from such laws.”

As for prohibiting receipt or transfer of a gun while under indictment, the 6th ruled, “§ 922(n)’s prohibition is comparable to the founding-era history of pretrial detention ‘in both why and how it burdens the 2nd Amendment right… Like pretrial detention, § 922(n) restricts indicted persons’ rights during the fraught period between indictment and trial, for the purpose of furthering public safety and protecting the integrity of the criminal process. And just as bail was denied outright only for defendants facing serious charges, so § 922(n) is triggered only by indictment for a felony charge… So for those who already possess one or more firearms, § 922(n) represents only a slight burden on the 2nd Amendment right; and even for those who do not, § 922(n)’s prohibition is a lesser burden than detention or permanent disarmament.”

Finally, the 6th held last Thursday that Sylvester Gailes, a guy described as a “serial perpetrator of domestic violence,” could not use the 2nd Amendment to avoid his § 922(a) conviction. Sly had repeatedly beaten the mother of his children (occasionally doing so in the presence of the kids). He had been convicted of multiple domestic violence misdemeanors.

Under 18 USC § 922(g)(9), someone convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence is prohibited from possessing a gun.

The Circuit ruled that “domestic violence convictions generally involve some sort of physical force… When the presence of a gun accompanies the use of physical force, the likelihood that abuse turns to homicide greatly increases… It is no surprise then that Congress sought to deprive people with domestic violence convictions from possessing firearms.”

guns170111The 6th held that “[t]aken together, Rahimi [which held that someone subject to a domestic protection order] and Williams evince that our history and tradition of firearm regulation support § 922(g)(9). Although § 922(g)(9) is by no means identical to the historical sources above or a founding-era regime, it does not need to be. The historical sources cited in Rahimi and Williams establish the constitutionality of modern firearms regulations targeting those who pose a clear threat of physical violence to another.

United States v. Williams, 113 F.4th 637 (6th Cir., 2024)

United States v. Goins, Case No 23-5848, 2024 U.S.App. LEXIS 25355 (6th Cir., October 8, 2024)

United States v. Gore, Case No 23-3640, 2024 U.S.App. LEXIS 25361 (6th Cir., October 8, 2024)

United States v. Gailes, Case No 23-5928, 2024 U.S.App. LEXIS 25571 (6th Cir., October 10, 2024)

– Thomas L. Root

SCOTUS Starts October 2024 Term With A Docket That Leaves Plenty of Space for New Cases – Update for October 8, 2024

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.

NEW SUPREME COURT TERM LEAVES PLENTY OF ROOM ON DOCKET FOR GUNS, ELECTIONS AND TRUMP

Yesterday was the first Monday in October, and everyone knows what that means. The Supreme Court’s new season, known as October Term 2024, began its nine-month run with a couple of dry-as-toast non-criminal oral arguments.

vacationSCOTUS180924At this point, there are not many cases of interest on this year’s Supreme Court docket for federal criminal law followers. But the ABA Journal last week reminded readers that “a year ago, the 2023-24 term looked like it might be relatively sleepy. But that was before the court added cases on guns, abortion medication and two matters involving former President Donald Trump and the Jan 6, 2021, riot…”

The SCOTUS news for readers of this blog was released last Friday, when the Justices announced 15 new cases they would hear this term, all coming out of last week’s annual “long conference,” the annual culling of certiorari petitions that marks the end of SCOTUS’s summer recess.

Four of the certiorari grants involved criminal law issues. The only substantive federal criminal statute case is Thompson v. United States, which asks whether 18 USC § 1014 — making a “false statement” to influence certain financial institutions and federal agencies — also prohibits making a statement that is misleading but not false.

In Barnes v. Felix, the court will consider (in the context of a civil rights suit) whether the 4th Amendment, which prohibits police from using “unreasonable” force, depends on “the totality of the circumstances” or just under the “moment of the threat.” The reasonableness of an officer’s actions for 4th Amendment purposes is a fact-intensive inquiry. The question is whether the entire encounter with the person who is later contesting the seizure is examined in gauging whether the officer’s force is appropriate or whether only what happened in the narrow window when the officer’s safety was threatened is at issue.

In Perttu v. Richards, the issue is the technical but consequential question of whether under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, prisoners have a right to a jury trial concerning their exhaustion of administrative remedies where disputed facts regarding exhaustion are intertwined with the underlying merits of their claim.

Finally, Gutierrez v. Sanz, a capital case, deals with standing issues in conjunction with efforts by a state defendant to secure post-conviction DNA testing.

gunknot181009One issue sure to make it onto the Supreme Court docket is the constitutionality of 18 USC § 922(g). The leading case on the question of the constitutionality of the felon-in-possession statute, § 922(g)(1) – the 3rd Circuit Range v. Garland en banc decision – was remanded by SCOTUS in light of United States v. Rahimi last spring. The 3rd Circuit will hold oral argument on Range tomorrow.

So far this past summer, three circuits have grappled with Rahimi, resulting in three different approaches. Last August, the 8th Circuit held in United States v. Jackson that § 922(g)(1) was constitutional. A few weeks later, the 6th Circuit ruled in United States v. Williams that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional on its face and as applied to “dangerous people,” but not necessarily to all felons. On Sept 18, the 5th Circuit held in United States v. Diaz that § 922(g)(1) was constitutional as applied to a defendant once convicted of stealing a car based on the fact that 18th-century laws “authoriz[ed] severe punishments for thievery and permanent disarmament in other cases.”

mario170628Meanwhile, in Greene v. Garland, a case brought against the Dept of Justice by a Pennsylvania district attorney who is a registered medical marijuana user but wants to possess a gun, DOJ attorneys argue that the nationwide ban on marijuana users owning guns is constitutional, saying it aligns with other restrictions on gun ownership by dangerous, mentally ill or intoxicated people.

The DOJ’s position makes some sense here. Everyone knows how dangerous a district attorney can be…

SCOTUSBlog.com, Justices take up “false statement” dispute and rare capital case (October 4, 2024)

Thompson v. United States, Case No. 23-1095 (certiorari granted October 4, 2024)

Barnes v. Felix, Case No. 23-1239 (certiorari granted October 4, 2024)

Perttu v. Richards, Case No. 22-1298 (certiorari granted October 4, 2024)

Gutierrez v. Sanz, Case No. 23-7808 (certiorari granted October 4, 2024)

ABA Journal, Supreme Court’s sleepy-looking docket leaves room for potentially bigger cases to come (October 3, 2024)

Marijuana Moment, DOJ Says Allowing A Pennsylvania Prosecutor Who Uses Medical Marijuana To Possess A Gun Would Be ‘Dangerous’ (October 3, 2024)

United States v. Jackson, 110 F.4th 1120 (8th Cir. 2024)

United States v. Williams, 113 F.4th 637 (6th Cir. 2024)

United States v. Diaz, Case No. 23-50452, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 23725 (5th Cir. Sep. 18, 2024)

Greene v. Garland, ECF 32, Case No 1:24-cv-21 (W.D. Pa., filed October 1, 2024)

– Thomas L. Root

5th Circuit Suggests Felon-In-Possession May Sometimes Violate 2nd Amendment – Update for September 23, 2024

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.

NO GUNS FOR HORSE THIEVES… BUT MAYBE FOR OTHERS

While upholding a felon-in-possession conviction against Ronnie Diaz, the 5th Circuit ruled last week that 18 USC § 922(g)(1) nevertheless may violate the 2nd Amendment in some cases.

grandtheftauth240923

Ron’s conviction was not his first felon-in-possession rodeo. In 2014, he did three years in state prison in 2014 for stealing a car and evading arrest. Four years later, he was caught breaking into a car while carrying a gun and a baggie of meth. He did two years in state for a Texas charge of possessing a firearm as a felon. (Yeah, it’s illegal there, too).

After a November 2020 traffic stop that got kicked up to the Feds, Ron was convicted of 21 USC § 841(a)(1) drug trafficking, an 18 USC 18 USC § 924(c) count for possessing a gun during a drug crime, and a § 922(g)(1) felon-in-possession. Ron moved to dismiss the § 922(g)(1) as unconstitutional under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The district court denied him.

The district court denied Ron’s Bruen motion. Ron appealed, and last week, the 5th Circuit agreed.

Bruen addressed whether a state law severely limiting the right to carry a gun in public violated the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. When a law limits 2nd Amendment rights, Bruen held, the burden falls on the government to show that the law is “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” This involves addressing “how and why the regulations burden a law-abiding citizen’s right to armed self-defense.” In Bruen, the Court held that the plain text of the 2nd Amendment protects the right to bear arms in public for self-defense and that the government had failed to “identify an American tradition” justifying limiting such behavior.

Then in United States v. Rahimi, the Supreme Court last June ruled that 18 USC § 922(g)(8) – that prohibits people under domestic protection orders from having guns – passed the Bruen test. Comparing § 922(g)(8) to colonial “surety and going armed” laws that prohibited people from “riding or going armed, with dangerous or unusual weapons to terrify the good people of the land,” the Supreme Court held that § 922(g)(8) was analogous to such laws,  only applied once a court has found that the defendant “represents a credible threat to the physical safety” and only applied only while a restraining order is in place.

Violating the “surety and going armed” laws could result in imprisonment. The 5th said that “if imprisonment was permissible to respond to the use of guns to threaten the physical safety of others, then the lesser restriction of temporary disarmament that § 922(g)(8) imposes is also permissible.”

horsethief240923The 5th noted that “felony” is much too malleable a term to serve as a basis for deciding § 922(g)(1)’s constitutionality. Instead, it compared each of Ron’s prior convictions to colonial laws. Stealing a car, the Circuit decided, was analogous to colonial laws against horse thievery, and horse thieves in colonial America “were often subject to the death penalty.” Such laws “establish that our country has a historical tradition of severely punishing people like Diaz who have been convicted of theft,” meaning that a permanent prohibition on possessing guns passes 2nd Amendment muster.

“Taken together,” the Circuit said, “laws authorizing severe punishments for thievery and permanent disarmament in other cases establish that our tradition of firearm regulation supports the application of § 922(g)(1) to Diaz.”

Considering the obverse, the Diaz opinion suggests that other offenses unknown in colonial times – like selling drugs, downloading child porn, securities fraud, or conspiracy to do anything illegal – could not trigger the felon-in-possession statute consistent with the 2nd Amendment. Requiring a court to parse a defendant’s priors in order to convict him of a § 922(g)(1) would make a confusing hash of any felon-in-possession case.

Writing in his Sentencing Policy and Law blog, Ohio State University law professor Doug Berman observed that “the 8th Circuit has categorically rejected 2nd Amendment challenges to § 922(g)(1)… whereas the 6th Circuit has upheld this law “as applied to dangerous people.” The 5th Circuit has now upheld the law… based on the fact that there were Founding era laws ‘authorizing severe punishments for thievery and permanent disarmament in other cases’… [T]he fact that three circuits have taken three different approaches to this (frequently litigated) issue is yet another signal that this matter will likely have to be taken up by SCOTUS sooner rather than later.”

United States v. Diaz, Case No. 23-50452, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 23725 (5th Cir., September 18, 2024)

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022)

United States v. Rahimi, 144 S. Ct. 1889, 219 L. Ed. 2d 351 (2024)

Sentencing Policy and the Law, Fifth Circuit panel rejects Second Amendment challenge to federal felon in possession for defendant with prior car theft offense (September 20, 2024)

– Thomas L. Root

Felon-In-Possession 2nd Amendment Challenges Are Trending – Update for September 20, 2024

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.

922(g) FELON IN POSSESSION CHALLENGES EXPLODE AFTER BRUEN

The Trace reported last week that 55% of over 2,000 federal court decisions citing New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen over the past two years have challenged the constitutionality of 18 USC § 922(g)’s ban on felons possessing guns and ammo, “making it the single most frequently contested statute by far.”

guns200304The latest example was handed down two days ago in United States v. Diaz. In that case, the 5th Circuit ruled that just being a felon was insufficient to make the application of 18 USC § 922(g)(1) consistent with the Second Amendment. But where the defendant had been convicted of a felony of theft, that “would have led to capital punishment or estate forfeiture” at the time the Second Amendment was ratified, “disarming [the defendant] fits within this tradition of serious and permanent punishment” and is thus constitutionally applied.

I will write more about Diaz on Monday. For now, back to the trendline:

The Trace reported that “at least 30 of the challenges to the felon gun ban have succeeded. While that ratio may seem small, it marks a stark departure from the past, when effectively none succeeded, and it shows that Bruen has cracked the longstanding consensus that people convicted of serious crimes may constitutionally be barred from gun ownership.”

When weighing the felon gun ban, judges have distinguished between violent and nonviolent offenses. But a former prosecutor told The Trace (an unapologetically anti-gun publication), that drawing the line is tough. “Who’s dangerous? What is your definition of dangerous? It’s easier to have a bright line. But that bright line is gone.”

Andrew Willinger, the executive director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law – which disseminates and supports reliable, balanced, and insightful scholarship and programming on firearms law – said it remains unclear whether banning gun possession among entire categories of people, like felons, is constitutional, particularly when their convictions were for nonviolent offenses that posed no obvious danger to the public.

“You’re really talking about categorical group determinations, rather than any kind of individualized finding of a threat of danger,” Willinger said. “And [United States v.] Rahimi doesn’t endorse [categorical prohibitions], but it also doesn’t rule them out, right?”

gun160711No one can know how the Supreme Court will rule when the felon gun ban finally gets to the high court, although no one can doubt that it will. When Justice Amy Coney Barrett was a 7th Circuit judge, she wrote a dissent favoring restoration of gun rights to nonviolent felons. “That is probably the direction that the Supreme Court is headed if and when it takes up these cases,” Willinger said, “which I think it probably has to do at some point in the near future.”

The Trace, More Than a Thousand Felons Have Challenged Their Gun Bans Since the Supreme Court’s Bruen Decision (September 12, 2024)

United States v. Diaz, Case No. 23-50452, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 23725 (5th Cir., September 18, 2024)

– Thomas L. Root

A Spate of 2nd Amendment Decisions – Update for September 3, 2024

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.

GUNNING FOR THE 2ND AMENDMENT

iloveguns221018A 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.”

doggun240213The § 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)

carriefgun170807Kansas 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