Tag Archives: 18 usc 922(g)

Lurching Toward A Dangerousness Standard for Bruen – Update for January 25, 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.

BRUEN CONTINUES TO EXPAND GUN RIGHTS

aliengun240124For the first time, a West Texas federal judge last month ruled that 18 USC § 922(g)(5)(A) – which prohibits aliens in the country unlawfully from possessing guns or ammo – violates the 2nd Amendment in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen decision. The West Texas decision, which the government has appealed to the 5th Circuit, is noteworthy, as is the judge’s lament at the outset of her opinion:

The Court pauses to join the choir of lower courts urging the Supreme Court to resolve the many unanswered questions left in Bruen’s wake… In the estimate of one legal scholar who reviewed more than 300 decisions applying Bruen, “lower courts have received Bruen’s message to supercharge the 2nd Amendment, but they have not yet located its Rosetta Stone. Their collective decisions in the months since the ruling have been scattered, unpredictable, and often internally inconsistent…” Against this backdrop of uncertainty, the Court “applie[s] Bruen as well as possible in evaluating the constitutionality of” the gun laws that Sing-Ledezma is charged with violating.

Citing Bruen, the judge deemed the law prohibiting people here illegally from possessing a gun “facially unconstitutional” and “an outlier that our ancestors would never have accepted.”

Last week, the 3rd Circuit joined in the “supercharging,” ruling that a Pennsylvania law that bans 18-to-20-year-olds from carrying guns outside their homes during a state of emergency violates the 2nd Amendment.kidgun240125 The 3rd ruled that 18-to-20-year-olds, like other subsets of the American public, are “presumptively among ‘the people’ to whom 2nd Amendment rights extend…. The Commissioner cannot point us to a single founding-era statute imposing restrictions on the freedom of 18-to-20-year-olds to carry guns… At the time of the 2nd Amendment’s passage, or shortly thereafter, the minimum age for militia service in every state became eighteen… We understand that a reasonable debate can be had over allowing young adults to be armed, but the issue before us is a narrow one. Our question is whether the Commissioner has borne his burden of proving that evidence of founding-era regulations supports Pennsylvania’s restriction on 18-to 20-year-olds’ 2nd Amendment rights, and the answer to that is no.”

The ”Rosetta Stone” that the Western District of Texas court seeks – at least for people serving sentences for being felons-in-possession under 18 USC 922(g)(1) – may come in United States v. Rahimi, the 5th Circuit case now awaiting a decision from the Supreme Court. The 3rd Circuit’s Range v. Attorney General en banc ruling – that held 18 USC § 922(g)(1), as applied to a nonviolent ex-felon, violated the 2nd Amendment – is on hold at the Supreme Court until Rahimi is decided.

In a thoughtful law review note to be published in the next few weeks, Jamie McWilliam argues that

in the context of felon disarmament, the primary group of laws that the government has put forward involve disarming classes that the government deemed dangerous… [embodying] a broad theme of dangerousness… [T]o determine the scope of the dangerousness standard, courts should look to the principles embodied by the 2nd Amendment itself—in particular, defense against immediate personal violence. Ultimately, this essay suggests that only those who have actually created the kind of danger that the amendment was meant to protect against—i.e., who have perpetrated physical violence—should be disarmed. This standard may defend against potentially prejudicial discretion, while simultaneously upholding 2nd Amendment rights and protecting our community.

nickdanger220426Many expect the Supreme Court to adopt such a dangerous exception to Bruen, an adoption that should advance the argument that many felon-in-possession convictions – where the dangerousness of the defendant is nonexistent – violate the 2nd Amendment.

United States v. Sing-Ledezma, Case No, EP-23-CR-823, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 223028 (W.D. Tex, December 10, 2023)

Law360, For Immigrants, Gun Rights Debate Goes Beyond Firearms (January 19, 2024)

Lara v. Commissioner, PA State Police, Case No. 21-1832, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 1159 (3d Cir., January 18, 2024)

McWilliam, Jamie, Refining the Dangerousness Standard in Felon Disarmament (December 4, 2023). 108 Minn. L. Rev. Headnotes (publication forthcoming ,2024)

– Thomas L. Root

Supreme Court Teeing Up Some Significant Criminal Law Decisions – Update for January 15, 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.

SUPREMES’ JANUARY LOOKING CONSEQUENTIAL FOR CRIM LAW HOLDINGS

alicewordsmeanhumpty231122The first argument of the current Supreme Court term last October, Pulsifer v. United States, ought to be yielding an opinion in the next few weeks. The First Step Act “safety valve” case – that considers whether “and” means “and” or simply “or” – has increased importance for a lot of people who might otherwise qualify for the zero-point sentence reduction under the new USSG § 4C1.1.

A condition of § 4C1.1 is that “the defendant did not receive an adjustment under § 3B1.1 (Aggravating Role) and was not engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise…” So does that mean the defendant is qualified unless he has a § 3B1.1 adjustment AND a CCE conviction? Or is he disqualified if he has a § 3B1.1 OR a CCE violation? There are a lot of § 3B1.1 enhancements out there, but not nearly as many CCE convictions.

Even without the § 4C1.1 angle, Ohio State University law professor Doug Berman said last week in his Sentencing Law and Policy blog that Pulsifer may “prove to be the most interesting and impactful sentencing case from the current SCOTUS Term.”

Meanwhile, other interesting Supreme Court developments are happening largely unseen. Last November, the Court granted review in Erlinger v. United States, a case which asks whether the Constitution requires that a jury (instead of the judge) find beyond a reasonable doubt that an Armed Career Criminal Act defendant’s three predicate offenses were “committed on occasions different from one another.”

May you rest in peace, Betty... stealing America's hearts did not make you ACCA-qualified.
May you rest in peace, Betty… stealing America’s hearts did not make you ACCA-qualified.

(The ACCA, for those who got here late, is a sentencing enhancement contained in 18 USC § 924(e)(2) which provides that the punishment for a felon-in-possession conviction under 18 USC § 922(g) begins with a mandatory 15 years and goes to life imprisonment if the defendant has three prior convictions for serious drug offenses or crimes of violence committed on occasions different from one another. Erlinger explores the collision of those elements with the 6th Amendment: can a judge find the ACCA applies to a felon-in-possession by a simple preponderance of the evidence, or must those elements be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt?)

The curious development in Erlinger is that both the Solicitor General and defendant Erlinger agree that after the Supreme Court adopted the current “standard for determining whether offenses occurred on different occasions [set forth] in Wooden v. United States” in 2022, the issue of whether the predicates were “committed on occasions different from one another” implicates a defendant’s Apprendi v. New Jersey rights to have facts that raise the statutory minimum and maximum must be decided beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury.

When both parties in a Supreme Court case agree on how the case should come out, the Court appoints a lawyer to argue the other side. SCOTUS has appointed one in this case, who will file a brief next month opposing the briefs Erlinger and DOJ have already filed.

Erlinger is important not only for the ACCA issue presented but because some on the Court have argued that where an enhanced penalty (like 21 USC § 851 drug enhancements) requires a showing of a prior conviction, due process requires that the fact of the conviction be decided by a jury. The Supremes ruled the other way in the 1998 Almendarez-Torres v. United States decision, a holding that was unaffected by the subsequent Apprendi ruling. Justice Clarence Thomas especially has criticized Almendarez-Torres, believing it is wrong, and the fact of prior convictions should be a jury question. Erlinger may give a holding that is expansive enough to address the Almendarez-Torres holding.

expert160905Last week, the Court heard argument in Smith v. Arizona, addressing whether a defendant’s 6th Amendment right to confront witnesses means that the lab expert who prepared a report on drug purity must be put on the stand to verify the report. Many courts currently permit another expert who did not conduct the test to testify as to drug purity based on the report’s findings.

The  Court seemed sympathetic to Jason Smith, an Arizona prisoner who contends that the expert’s testimony – based on a drug purity test performed by someone who wasn’t present to testify – contravened the 6th Amendment’s confrontation clause, which gives defendants in criminal cases the right to “be confronted with the witnesses against him.”

Finally, the Court will hear the argument tomorrow in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the case that could end Chevron deference – the notion that courts must defer to agency interpretation of statutes and rules. A change in Chevron deference could affect the Sentencing Guidelines, court deference to agency interpretation of gun laws, and court deference to BOP policies, among other changes.

Sentencing Law and Policy, Top side SCOTUS brief now files in Erlinger v. US, the case considering Apprendi’s application to part of ACCA (January 9, 2024)

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998)

Erlinger v. United States, Case No. 23-370 (S.Ct., awaiting decision)

Smith v. Arizona, Case No. 22-899 (S.Ct., argued January 10, 2024)

SCOTUSBlog, Court appears to favor Arizona man’s confrontation clause claim (January 10, 2024)

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, Case No. 22-451 (S.Ct., awaiting argument)

– Thomas L. Root

Straight Shooting on Felon-In-Possession – Update for January 9, 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.

HOW ABOUT THOSE “NEW LAWS” ON FELON-IN-POSSESSION?

I had yet another email last week – and there have been a lot of them – asking for information about any “new laws” on 18 USC § 922(g)(1) felon-in-possession.

We need to get some things straight.

dunce240109Remember those high school government classes you skipped? The teacher explained that a new “law” has to be passed by Congress and signed by the president, in this case by the notoriously anti-gun President Biden. When will that happen?

We are now into an election year in which Americans will elect one new president, 435 new members of the House and 33 new senators. Democrat voters, by and large, don’t like guns and hate the 2nd Amendment. Republican voters, by and large, love the 2nd Amendment but don’t think convicted felons should be allowed to do or have anything. Most people (77% of Americans and 92% of Republicans) think the crime rate is rising when, in fact, violent crime dropped 8% last year over 2022, the murder rate has plummeted, and the property crime rate fell 6.3% to what would be its lowest level since 1961.

Less than two years ago, Congress passed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act as a response to mass shootings at a Buffalo supermarket and a Uvalde, Texas, school. The bill – passed the House 55-45% but was approved in the Senate by a 2-1 margin – tightened background checks, toughened straw-purchaser laws, and increased the maximum for a simple, non-Armed Career Criminal Act felon-in-possession from 10 to 15 years.

So you tell me: who in Congress would vote to walk back felon-in-possession laws so soon after toughening them? Who in Congress would want to face attacks during a reelection campaign that he or she made it easier for criminals to get guns?

If you answered “no one,” you’re pretty close.

Federal law prohibiting anyone with a felony conviction from ever possessing a gun or ammo has only been around since 1961. But among politicians, it is untouchable. Every change to 18 USC § 922(g) in the last 63 years has only increased the classes of people prohibited from having guns or increased the penalties for violating the statute.

gun160711There is action on felon-in-possession, but it’s taking place across the street from the Senate and House chambers at the Supreme Court. Back in June 2022, the Supreme Court ruled in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn v. Bruen that when the 2nd Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. Only if a statute limiting firearm possession is consistent with “this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the 2nd Amendment’s ‘unqualified command’.”

Bruen has led to a cascade of 2nd Amendment attacks on 18 USC § 922(g). Most notably, the 3rd Circuit ruled in Range v. Attorney General, an en banc decision last June, that § 922(g)(1) felon-in-possession is unconstitutional as it applies to people convicted of nonviolent felonies. Range came only a week after the 8th Circuit ruled in United States v. Jackson that the § 922(g)(1) felon-in-possession ban remained a lawful limitation on gun possession even after Bruen.

whataburger230703Meanwhile, the government convinced the Supreme Court to take up United States v. Rahimi, a case in which the 5th Circuit ruled that § 922(g)(8) – which prohibits someone subject to a domestic protection order from possessing a gun – was unconstitutional. Oral arguments in Rahimi last fall did not go all that well for the defendant, chiefly because  Zackey Rahimi is a bad actor who threatened to kill his girlfriend, opened fire on a motorist in a road rage incident, and tried to shoot up a What-a-Burger because his friend’s credit card was declined.

Meanwhile, the Range petition for cert, also filed by the government, appears to be on hold pending the Rahimi decision.

Now add to that a petition filed on December 21 by Melynda Vincent, who passed a $492.00 counterfeit check while battling a drug addiction 15 years ago. Melynda sued the government in 2020 for the right to own a gun. The 10th Circuit ruled last fall that Bruen did not change the fact that felon-in-possession was constitutional. The government plans to oppose Melynda’s petition, but the issue – whether a sympathetic nonviolent offender whose crime was committed years ago can constitutionally be denied the right to possess a gun – is much like Bryan Range’s case.

vincent240109Melynda is as ideal a petitioner as Zack Rahimi is a poster child for gun control. Her federal judge gave her probation 15 years ago and challenged her to turn her life around. Melynda did that and more. She earned a bachelor’s degree in behavioral science followed by a master’s degree in social work and a second master’s degree in public administration. She is the founder and executive director of the Utah Harm Reduction Coalition, a nonprofit that works to develop science-driven drug and criminal justice reform policies. She also started the first legal syringe exchange service in the state.

It seems probable that the Supreme Court will try to limit Bruen where public safety is concerned. This makes it likely that the court may limit § 922(g)’s limitations to cases where the defendant’s dangerousness is at issue, which would benefit the Bryan Ranges and Melynda Vincents of the country, as well as any number of federal defendants whose § 922(g)(1) convictions have nothing to do with their perceived risk to public safety.

Vincent v. Garland, 80 F.4th 1197 (10th Cir, 2023)

Vincent v. Garland, Case No. 23-683 (petition for cert filed Dec 21, 2023)

Range v. Attorney General, 69 F.4th 96 (3d Cir. 2023) (en banc)

Garland v. Range, Case No. 23-374 (dist for conference November 17, 2023)

NBC, Most people think the U.S. crime rate is rising. They’re wrong. (December 16, 2023)

Deseret News, She lost her gun rights for passing a bad check. Now she wants the Supreme Court to restore them (December 29, 2023)

– Thomas L. Root

Continuing Our Santa Gift Review: A Lump of Coal for a Pro Se Defendant – Update for December 28, 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.

‘I AIN’T NO SNITCH – I’M JUST AN IDIOT’

Henry Underwood chose to represent himself at trial on a felon in possession of a firearm charge. After all, what do those lawyers know that Hank doesn’t?

snitchin200309Well, for starters, try this one on for size. Hank took the stand to testify in his own defense to the 18 USC § 922(g) felon-in-possession count. He explained to the jury that the gun found under his car seat belonged to someone else, not to him.

OK, so far, so good. But on cross-examination, the prosecutor asked the obvious question: if not Hank, exactly to whom did the gun belong? Hank tried to plead the 5th Amendment, saying he did not want to name the owner because he was no “snitch.”

You see, Hank, that dumb lawyer you didn’t want would have told you that by testifying, you were waiving your 5th Amendment rights. But Hank had jettisoned his mouthpiece as unnecessary. For his continued refusal to answer the prosecutor’s question, Hank found himself on the receiving end of a criminal contempt finding. Oh, yeah, and the jury found his testimony not credible and thus voted him guilty of the charged offense.

On appeal, Henry (now represented by counsel, a classic “too little, too late” decision if ever there was one, argued that his pretrial waiver of the right to counsel was not knowing and voluntary.

lumpofcoal221215Last week, the 7th Circuit gave Henry a lump of coal. The Circuit reviewed the four factors considered in determining whether a waiver is knowing and voluntary. The first is whether the court had made a formal inquiry into the defendant’s decision to represent himself. Hank argued that the court should have advised him of what his defenses were (and that he’d better be ready to answer questions on cross-examination if he took the stand). The 7th rejected that notion out of hand. The judge is not there to counsel the defendant.

The appellate panel also held that Henry’s “active participation at trial and regular consultation with standby counsel indicate that he knew the choice he was making when he elected to proceed pro se. Reliance on standby counsel reflects an appreciation for the difficulties of self-representation,” the Circuit held.

Besides, the Circuit said, Henry was no virgin. He had two prior felony convictions and one murder acquittal by a jury, “indicat[ing] he possessed knowledge of the complexities of procedure and trial sufficient to make him aware of the task she was undertaking.”

argueidiot180215Finally, the Court said, Hank “chose to proceed pro se after a disagreement with his appointed counsel over his defense and trial strategy. A defendant who waives his right to counsel for strategic reasons, including the decision to proceed without counsel due to differences in opinion regarding defense strategy, tends to do so knowingly… We therefore presume Underwood’s choice in this instance to have been strategic and intentional.”

If Henry thought that he could select which questions he was going to answer when he took the stand, he did not understand the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination and thus had no business firing his lawyer.

 United States v. Underwood, Case No 23-1303, 2023 U.S.App. LEXIS 33404 (7th Cir., Dec 18, 2023)

– Thomas L. Root

Two District Courts Find Felon-in-Possession Unconstitutional – Update for November 20, 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.

RUMBLINGS OF 922(g) UNCONSTITUTIONALITY

guns200304Even while the Supreme Court ponders Rahimi – the case that questions whether prohibiting people subject to domestic protection orders from having guns – lower courts are expressing doubts about whether 18 USC § 922(g), the statute prohibiting felons from possessing firearms, remains constitutional after the Supreme Court’s 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn v. Bruen decision.

The leading decision against unconstitutionality, of course, is Range v. Atty General, a 3rd Circuit en banc decision last June. Range held that § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional as applied to Bryan Range, who had been convicted of a welfare fraud offense 25 years ago. The government has filed for Supreme Court review in Range and asked SCOTUS to sit on the petition until it decides Rahimi next spring.

At the same time, the 8th Circuit went the other way in United States v. Jackson.

Down in the trenches, however, two federal district courts have held in the last several weeks that the felon-in-possession statute is unconstitutional.

In Chicago, Glen Prince – who the Government said had been robbing people at gunpoint on commuter trains – was arrested late one night while standing on a train platform with a gun. Ten days ago, a district court threw out his pending 18 USC § 922(g)(1) indictment – which alleged that Glen was Armed Career Criminal Act-eligible – as unconstitutional under Bruen.

The court ruled that Bruen did not hold that the Second Amendment categorically protects only law-abiding citizens, despite repeated use of such qualified language as “law-abiding citizens” in the decision. The district judge concluded instead that “the government has not met its burden to prove that felons are excluded from ‘the people’ whose firearm possession is presumptively protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment.

gun160711Because the right of a person with a prior felony conviction to possess a gun is presumptively protected by that Amendment, the court said, Bruen gives the government the authority to prohibit possession only when it can “demonstrate that the statute is part of this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation… Where a ‘distinctly modern’ regulation is at issue, the government must offer a historical regulation that is ‘relevantly similar’ and… must determine whether historical regulations ‘impose a comparable burden on the right of armed self-defense and whether that burden is comparably justified’ as the burden imposed by § 922(g)(1).”

The “first federal statute disqualifying certain violent felons from firearm possession was not enacted until… 1938,” the court noted, finding “no evidence of any law categorically restricting individuals with felony convictions from possessing firearms at the time of the Founding or ratification of the Second or 14th Amendments.” The district court concluded that § 922(g)(1) “imposes a far greater burden on the right to keep and bear arms than the historical categorical exclusions from the people’s Second Amendment right. The government has not demonstrated why the modern ubiquity of gun violence, and the heightened lethality of today’s firearm technology compared to the Founding, justify a different result.”

Glen’s ACCA count was dismissed.

Meanwhile, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, a district court declared § 922(g) unconstitutional as applied to a man convicted of a DUI two decades ago.

Ed Williams had a prior drunk-driving conviction when he was arrested for DUI in Philadelphia 20 years ago. The prior conviction, combined with the fact that his blood alcohol concentration was three times the legal limit, made the second offense “a 1st-degree misdemeanor punishable by up to 5 years in prison.” That was enough to trigger § 922(g)(1), which prohibits guns to anyone convicted of a crime carrying a maximum sentence of over a year in prison (not just felonies).

gunb160201The district court ruled that “[p]rohibiting [Ed]’s possession of a firearm due to his DUI conviction is a violation of his Second Amendment rights as it is inconsistent with the United States’ tradition of firearms regulation. The Constitution ‘presumptively protects’ individual conduct plainly covered by the text of the Second Amendment, which includes an individual’s right to keep and bear arms for self-defense… Protected individuals presumptively include all Americans… The Supreme Court has held that an individual’s conduct may fall outside of Second Amendment protection ‘[o]nly if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition…’”

The district court relied on the fact that the 3rd Circuit had “determined that Bryan Range, who had a qualifying conviction under Section 922(g)(1) for making a false statement to obtain food stamps and who wished to possess firearms to hunt and to defend himself, could not be denied his 2nd Amendment right to possess a firearm due to that conviction.” The judge held that “the narrow analysis in Range also applies to the Plaintiff here.”

United States v. Prince, Case No. 22-CR-240, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196874 (N.D. Ill., November 2, 2023)

Williams v. Garland, Case No. 17-cv-2641, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203304 (E.D.Pa., November 14, 2023)

WLS-TV, Chicago judge rules statute barring felons from having guns unconstitutional under Bruen decision (November 16, 2023)

Reason, He Lost His Gun Rights Because of a Misdemeanor DUI Conviction. That Was Unconstitutional, a Judge Says (November 15, 2023)

– Thomas L. Root

Gunning for Bruen – Update for November 3, 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.

RAHIMI ORAL ARGUMENT NEXT WEEK IS HIGH STAKES FOR SECOND AMENDMENT

scotus161130On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in United States v. Rahimi, a case that will determine the constitutionality of 18 USC § 922(g)(8), the subsection of the federal firearms possession statute that bars people subject to domestic protection orders from having guns or ammo. Rahimi may well do more than that, addressing the constitutionality of all of 922(g) – including possession of guns by felons.

The Supreme Court’s 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen adopted a new originalist 2nd Amendment standard:

We hold that when the 2nd Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate 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 2nd Amendment’s “unqualified command.

Bruen 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 2nd Amendment rights.

Since Bruen, several 922(g)-based restrictions have been declared unconstitutional. Possession of guns by people who are subject to domestic protection orders, who use controlled substances – illegal under 922(g)(3), and who have been convicted of nonviolent criminal offenses, illegal under 922(g)(1), have been held to be unconstitutional under Bruen. The government has sought certiorari on all of these decisions, suggesting to the Supreme Court that a Rahimi decision can clean them all up (and in the government’s favor).

sexualassault211014Social and public health advocates argue in essence that “validating the federal law prohibiting persons subject to domestic violence protective orders from gun possession will literally mean the difference between life or death for many victims of abuse, their family, friends, law enforcement, and the broader community,” as the Bloomberg School of Public Health puts it.

Rahimi provides the Supreme Court with an opportunity to clarify how lower courts should apply the new framework laid out in Bruen. This will significantly impact the continued viability of current gun laws and the ability of legislators to address what the Bloomberg School calls “the ongoing gun violence epidemic.”

But others suggest that 922(g)(8) looks “more like a political performance than a serious effort to reduce abusive behavior.” Writing in Law & Liberty, George Mason University laws professor Nelson Lund argues that nevertheless, “the government’s brief [in Rahimi] may look like little more than a Hail Mary pass aimed at persuading the Justices to revise or deceptively “clarify” the novel Bruen test. This gambit, however, could very well succeed. The Bruen holding has its roots in a dissenting opinion written by then-Judge Kavanaugh before he was promoted to the Supreme Court. His opinion was exposed to serious objections arising largely from the paucity of historical evidence that could support a viable history-and-tradition test. Bruen suffers from the same weakness, and it was clear from the start that the Court would find itself driven toward reliance on means-end analysis, although not necessarily the very deferential form that Bruen rejected.”

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.

Robert Leider, an assistant professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School in Arlington, Virginia, said at a Federalist Society forum in September that “the real legal question that everyone is interested in with Rahimi is to see how the court clarifies and applies the text, history and tradition test that it announced two terms ago in Bruen. Unquestionably, the government sought review in this case to water down the test.”

Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar took steps to expedite the review of Rahimi, citing the “substantial disruption” that invalidation of the domestic violence gun restriction would create. Meanwhile, as the American Bar Association Journal put it, Prof. Leider said the Solicitor General “slow-walked [the] cert petition in another gun case, in which the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit in June struck down the so-called felon-in-possession statute, barring those sentenced to prison for more than one year from possessing a firearm.”

That 3rd Circuit case, Range v. Atty General, involves a man convicted of food stamp fraud 25 years before who was prevented from buying a gun.

“Mr. Rahimi is the poster child for irresponsible gun possession,” Leider said. “I think the government wanted this case and not the Range welfare fraud case because this case is much easier on the judgment line.”

He’s right that Rahimi is a tough case for those hoping that Bruen may ultimately limit the proscription on nonviolent felons owning guns (such as the case in the 3rd Circuit en banc decision in Range v. Attorney General. The evidence suggests that the presence of firearms in abusive relationships increases the risk of injury and death substantially.

After seeking cert on the Range decision, the government suggested the Court sit on the petition until a decision is handed down in Rahimi.

United States v. Rahimi, Case No. 22-915 (oral argument November 7, 2023)

N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. —, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 213 L.Ed.2d 387 (2022)

Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Questions and Answers on U.S. v. Rahimi, the Major Gun Case Before the Supreme Court During its 2023–2024 Term (October 10, 2023)

American Bar Association Journal, Supreme Court takes on first major gun case since landmark ruling last year softened regulations (November 2, 2023)

Law & Liberty, Domestic Violence and the Second Amendment (November 1, 2023)

USA Today, Domestic violence abuse victims need more protections — not less stringent gun regulations (November 2, 2023)

– Thomas L. Root

Showdown at 922(g) Corral Becomes All But Certain – Update for September 19, 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.

10TH CIRCUIT SAYS FELON-IN-POSSESSION BAN IS CONSTITUTIONAL

The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen has spawned a tsunami of 2nd Amendment attacks on 18 USC § 922(g), the subsection of the law that prohibits various classes of people (and we’re including you, drug-using Hunter Biden) from possessing guns or ammo.

gunfreezone170330Most notably, the 3rd Circuit ruled in Range v. Attorney General, an en banc decision last June, that the § 922(g)(1) felon-in-possession ban is unconstitutional as it applies to people convicted of nonviolent felonies (again –  if the tax stuff goes badly for you – Hunter Biden, we’d be talking about you again).

Other subsections of § 922(g) are faring no better.  A month ago, the 5th Circuit held in United States v. Daniels that § 922(g)(3)‘s ban on drug abusers possessing guns was unconstitutional.  That Circuit’s United States v. Rahimi decision had already held that someone subject to a civil protection order could not be prohibited from possessing a gun. The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in that case.

gunfight230919Range conflicts with United States v. Jackson, an 8th Circuit ruling from a week before Range was issued that holds that § 922(g)(1)‘s felon-in-possession ban remained a lawful limitation on gun possession even after Bruen. Last week, in Vincent v. Garland, a case with facts a lot those in like Range, the 10th Circuit agreed with Jackson’s reasoning. The odds of a showdown at the Supreme Court – perhaps a sweeping decision that is the firearms equivalent of the evisceration of Roe v. Wade – are increasing.

gun160718Melynda Vincent, addicted to meth at the time, was convicted of bank fraud 15 years ago. Now, with time served and her drug problems behind her, Melinda wants to own a gun again. She argued that the 10th Circuit’s 2009 precedent, United States v. McCane – that held § 922(g)(1) to be constitutional – was no longer good law after Bruen.

The 10th rejected her argument. The appellate court noted that McCane relied “solely” on District of Columbia v. Heller, a 2008 case in which the Supreme Court appeared to recognize that § 922(g)(1) was constitutional.

Though Bruen created a new test for determining the scope of the 2nd Amendment,” the 10th observed, “the Supreme Court didn’t appear to question the constitutionality of longstanding prohibitions on possession of firearms by convicted felons… First, six of the nine Bruen Justices pointed out that they were not casting any doubt on the [felon prohibition] language in Heller. Second, Bruen apparently approved the constitutionality of regulations requiring criminal background checks before applicants could get gun permits. In Bruen, the Court struck down state regulations that had required the showing of a special need before someone could get a license to carry a gun. But the Court added that it wasn’t questioning the constitutionality of “shall-issue” licensing regimes. These regimes don’t require a showing of special need, but they do ‘often require applicants to undergo a background check’ to ensure that the applicant is a ‘law-abiding, responsible citizen.’

The Circuit said that in preserving “shall-issue” background checks, the Supremes “arguably implied that it was constitutional to deny firearm licenses to individuals with felony convictions. Bruen’s language thus could support an inference that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t entitle felons to possess firearms.”

circuitsplit220516The government is planning to take Range to the Supreme Court by an October 5th deadline. This 10th Circuit holding that “Bruen did not indisputably and pellucidly abrogate our precedential opinion in McCane” makes the circuit split more pronounced than before, making a grant of certiorari on Range likelier than ever.

Vincent v. Garland, Case No 21-4121, 2023 USApp LEXIS 24554 (10th Cir. Sep. 15, 2023)

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. —, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 213 L. Ed. 2d 387 (June 23, 2022)

United States v. McCane, 573 F.3d 1037 (10th Cir. 2009)

Range v. Attorney General, 69 F.4th 96 (3d Cir. 2023)

United States v. Jackson, 69 F.4th 495 (8th Cir. 2023)

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US 570 (2008)

– Thomas L. Root

Bruen Claims Another Victim (Albeit Reluctantly) – Update for July 6, 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.

DISTRICT COURT SAYS § 922(g)(1) UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Deep in the Old South, federal judge Carreeves230706lton W. Reeves holds court. He is black, the first in his family to attend college, an Obama appointee with a resume of work for the ACLU. He wrote the district court decision that was ultimately reversed by the Supreme Court in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization (the decision that struck down Roe v. Wade), and he has repeatedly blocked Mississippi laws widely considered to be discriminatory to LGBT persons.

In short, he’s a guy conventional wisdom figures to be in line with all that President Biden and the progressive wing of the Democratic Party hold dear, so much so that Biden last year made him the new chairman of the Sentencing Commission.

So you would expect Judge Reeves to be all in on gun control in general and the value of laws prohibiting felons from possessing guns in particular. You would be wrong.

Last week, Judge Reeves ruled in a 75-page opinion that the felon-in-possession statute violates the 2nd Amendment.

The government was prosecuting Jessie Bullock, who as a 31-year-old hothead had gotten into a fatal bar fight. He did time for manslaughter. Now, the 59-year-old Jessie was caught in possession of a .22 level-action rifle and a .22 revolver, hardly the stuff of gang wars or bank robberies. No matter. The government charged him with being a felon in possession.

daveanddad230706Jessie’s public defender moved to dismiss the charge as unconstitutional in the wake of last year’s Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc v. Bruen.

Judge Reeves, who wanted the parties to agree that an expert historian be appointed to give a report on the history of laws prohibiting felons from having guns, lamented the lack of historical evidence supporting the cases the government cited in support of its position. “It is unsurprising that the government relies on jurisprudence filled with such methodological flaws,” he observed tartly, because “[t]he same errors define the Supreme Court’s own Second Amendment jurisprudence…”

Relying on the 3rd Circuit’s en banc Range decision of three weeks ago, Judge Reeves held that “the government[] does not identify a “well‐established and representative historical analogue” from either era supporting the categorical disarmament of tens of millions of Americans who seek to keep firearms in their home for self‐defense.

historyvictors230706Although he ruled against the government, Judge Reeves criticized the judicial philosophy of “originalism,” underlying Bruen that holds that the Constitution should be interpreted as it was understood when it was written. For much of American history, he said, interpretation of the Constitution has changed to incorporate modern values, citing the 2015 Obergefell ruling legalizing same-sex marriage.

“The next generation will have its own conceptions of liberty,” the Judge wrote. “It will interpret the principles of the Constitution, enduring as they are, differently than this generation has interpreted them. Change is unstoppable.”

United States v. Bullock, Case No 3:18-CR-165, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112397 (S.D.Miss., June 28, 2023)

New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. —, 142 S.Ct. 2111, 213 Led 2d 387 (2022)

Reuters, Mississippi judge, dismissing gun charge, assails Supreme Court gun ruling (June 29, 2023)

– Thomas L. Root

8th Circuit Writes History on Constitutionality of 922(g) – Update for June 5, 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.

HISTORY LESSON

gunb160201Since the Supreme Court’s New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen decision almost a year ago, the constitutionality of just about every federal limitation on gun possession (short of machine guns and howitzers) has been thrown into question. The most important limitation to most of this site’s readers is 18 USC § 922(g)(1), the messy statute prohibiting some convicted felons (but not all of them, see 18 USC § 921(a)(20) for the confusing details) from possessing guns or ammo.

Courts have ruled that prohibiting the users of controlled substances from possessing guns is unconstitutional, something that Hunter Biden’s lawyers are very interested in. One U.S. District Court has held that denying gun possession to someone under indictment is unconstitutional. And the 5th Circuit has held that denying a gun to someone subject to a domestic protection order is unconstitutional.

The most-watched case currently is the 3rd Circuit’s Range v. Attorney General. After a three-judge panel summarily said that § 922(g)(1)’s limitation preventing a guy convicted of a minor fraud three decades ago from having a gun was constitutional, the Circuit last January withdrew the decision and sent the case to an en banc reconsideration. That decision has not yet been handed down.

Last week, the 8th Circuit jumped into the fray, rejecting a defendant’s claim that “he had a constitutional right under the 2nd Amendment to possess a firearm as a convicted felon.”

bersa230605Defendant Edell Jackson was caught at a scene where shots had been fired with a cheap handgun in his pocket. He had two prior felony drug convictions. After a trial, he was convicted of being a felon in possession of a gun under 18 USC § 922(g)(1). An appeal, he argued that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to him because his drug offenses were nonviolent and did not show that he is more dangerous than the typical law-abiding citizen.

Last week, the 8th Circuit held that § 922(g)(1) was “not unconstitutional as applied to Jackson based on his particular felony convictions.” The 8th noted that Supreme Court gun decisions, including Bruen, recognized that an individual right to keep and bear arms should not “be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons” but rather is “subject to certain reasonable, well-defined restrictions.” Those assurances, the Circuit held, along with the history that supports limitations on gun possession by felons means there is “no need for felony-by-felony litigation regarding the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1).”

The Court marched through history, beginning with pre-colonial England and ending with the 1968 Gun Control Act, to argue that the right to bear arms was subject to restrictions, including “prohibitions on possession by certain groups of people.” The 8th noted that the now-withdrawn Range panel decision concluded that legislatures may disarm citizens who are not “law-abiding” (those unwilling to obey the laws “whether or not they had demonstrated a propensity for violence”). Edell’s argument was more refined: he contended that the constitution limited the laws to prohibiting gun possession “by those who are deemed more dangerous than a typical law-abiding citizen”).

The 8th held that by either § 922(g)(1) “is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation” and therefore constitutional:

We conclude that legislatures traditionally employed status-based restrictions to disqualify categories of persons from possessing firearms,” the 8th ruled. “Whether those actions are best characterized as restrictions on persons who deviated from legal norms or persons who presented an unacceptable risk of dangerousness, Congress acted within the historical tradition when it enacted § 922(g)(1) and the prohibition on possession of firearms by felons.

This Jackson panel decision – a ruling by three judges in the notoriously conservative Circuit – will hardly be as definitive as the Range decision expected from an en banc panel consisting of up to 25 active appellate judges, and it is certainly subject to attack for what I think is superficial historical analysis. But as a portent of how far Bruen may go in invalidating § 922(g)(1), Jackson is concerning.

There’s little doubt that the constitutionality of most if not all of § 922(g) will end up in front of the Supreme Court, but don’t look for that before 2025 at the earliest. All of this matters because it could invalidate thousands of § 922(g) convictions for people now serving sentences.

gun160718Meanwhile, remember United States v. Rahimi, the 5th Circuit decision that § 922(g)(8) – that prohibits people with domestic violence protection orders from gun possession – is unconstitutional? I reported that the government wasted no time seeking Supreme Court review. On May 30, defendant Rahimi filed his opposition to the government’s petition (after seven parties ranging from a New York county district attorneys’ group to California Governor Gavin Newsom filed petitions supporting grant of certiorari).

The very next day, the government asked SCOTUS to waive the usual two-week delay before considering the petition. With the delay, it is likely the Court will break for the summer without considering the petition until the end of September. The government is in a hurry to get this case heard.

United States v. Jackson, Case No 22-2870, 2023 U.S.App. LEXIS 13635 (8th Cir. June 2, 2023)

Range v. Attorney General, 53 F.4th 262 (3d Cir. 2022) (per curiam), rehearing en banc granted, 56 F.4th 992 (3d Cir. 2023)

Sentencing Law and Policy, 8th Circuit panel rejects constitutional challenge to federal felon-in-possession prohibition (June 2, 2023)

United States v. Rahimi, Case No 21-11001, 61 F.4th 443 (5th Cir. 2023)

Rahimi v. United States, Case No 22-915 (Petition for certiorari filed Mar 17, 2023)

CNN, Texas man urges Supreme Court to stay out of major Second Amendment case (May 31, 2023)

– Thomas L. Root

Maybe Guns and Drugs Do Mix – Update for April 14, 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.

GUNS, DRUGS AND ROCK AND ROLL

Last summer’s Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen continues to reverberate.

Last week, a second federal district court ruled that 18 USC § 922(g)(3) – which bans people who consume unlawful controlled substances from possessing guns or ammo – is unconstitutional. The court held that the same legal principle also applies to the sale and transfer of guns to such people.

Smoke enough, and you might see this... but it wouldn't violate § 922(g)
Smoke enough, and you might see this… but it wouldn’t violate § 922(g)

Bruen held that a court must “determine whether ‘the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct,’” If it does, Constitution “presumptively protects that conduct.” Then, in order to regulate the conduct, the Government “must justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” pointing to “historical precedent from before, during, and even after the founding” of the country that “evinces a comparable tradition of regulation.”

Applying Bruen, courts have found that § 922(g) bans on possession of guns by people subject to domestic protection orders and by people unlawfully using controlled substances violate the Second Amendment. Currently, a Third Circuit en banc court is wrestling with whether the Second Amendment bars the Government from prohibiting the possession of firearms by an individual convicted of the felony of submitting a false application for food stamps over 25 years ago. The Dept of Justice has appealed decisions that the § 922(g)(3) ban on drug users possessing guns is unconstitutional in the 10th Circuit. A group of marijuana users seeking the right to possess guns have appealed an adverse ruling in the 11th Circuit.

In last week’s decision, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas threw out charges that Paola Connelly had violated both 18 USC § 922(g)(3) by possessing a gun as an admitted pot smoker and 18 USC § 922(d)(3) by transferring a gun to her husband, an alleged cokehead.

potscooby180713Neither Paola nor her hubby had been proven to be unlawful drug users. But in the pretrial motion decision, Judge Kathleen Cardone said it didn’t matter if they had been: “[E]ven if Connelly and her husband used controlled substances to the extent alleged by the Government, the Court would find § 922(g)(3) and (d)(3) unconstitutional… Connelly’s alleged drug use more resembles private drinking than public drunkenness, casting doubt on the idea that history supports criminalizing or disarming her for this behavior,” Cardone writes. “And more generally, nothing in § 922(g)(3) limits its applicability to public dangers or active intoxication, putting it out of step with colonial-era attitudes.”

The Judge was clearly troubled that unlike prohibitions on felons possessing guns, § 922(g)(3) does not provide for any pre-deprivation process. The Government need not conduct a hearing or make any offer of proof before it deems someone an “unlawful user” of controlled substances and proceeds to bludgeon the unfortunate stoner with a § 922(g)(3) felony. Citing a prior Western District of Oklahoma case, Judge Cardone complained that “this lack of process makes § 922(g)(3) an ‘outlier in our legal tradition.’”

For “the millions of individuals who use marijuana in states that have legalized the practice,” the Judge observed, “§ 922(g)(3) categorically prevents them from owning a firearm without a hearing or any preliminary showing from the Government. They must choose to either stop their marijuana use, forgo possession of a firearm, or continue both practices and face up to fifteen years in federal prison.”

America’s historical tradition of disarming “unlawful” individuals, the Court held, “appears to mainly involve disarming those convicted of serious crimes after they have been afforded criminal process.” This tradition makes § 922(g)(3) unconstitutional.

Notably, Judge Cardone quoted a 2019 dissent that Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. Barrett argued that the federal ban on gun possession by people with nonviolent felony records sweeps too broadly. In making that case, she took it for granted that a nonviolent misdemeanor is not enough to justify depriving someone of his Second Amendment rights.

marijuana160818Reason observed, “The Biden administration continues to argue that forbidding cannabis consumers to own guns is like telling people not to carry guns when they’re drunk. The Justice Department, meanwhile, is appealing Wyrick’s decision, and it can be expected to appeal Cardone’s as well… For those keeping partisan score, it is notable that all three of these judges were appointed by Republican presidents: Cardone by George W. Bush, Wyrick and Winsor by Donald Trump. Their disagreement seems to reflect evolving conservative views of marijuana as well as the impact of Bruen.

Look for plenty more judicial rock-and-roll on gun issues.

United States v. Connelly, Case No EP-22-CR-229(2)-KC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62495 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 6, 2023)

United States v. Harrison, Case No CR-22-00328-PRW, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18397, (W.D. Okla. Feb. 3, 2023)

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

Reason, Another Federal Judge Rejects the DOJ’s Argument That Cannabis Consumers Have No Second Amendment Rights (April 11, 2023)

– Thomas L. Root