Tag Archives: bruen

3rd Circuit Sharply Limits § 922(g)(1) ‘Felon-In-Possession’ – Update for June 8, 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.

A DAY AT THE ‘RANGE’

manyguns190423In a case with substantial implications for gun possession rights, the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit ruled Tuesday that 18 USC § 922(g)(1) – the so-called felon-in-possession statute – is unconstitutional as applied to a man convicted of a nonviolent crime over 25 years ago.

The en banc decision ruled 11-4 that Bryan Range – convicted of 62 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 481(a) back in 1995 for falsely stating his family’s income to qualify for food stamps – nevertheless “remains one of ‘the people’ protected by the 2nd Amendment, and his eligibility to lawfully purchase a rifle and a shotgun is protected by his right to keep and bear arms.”

Although 18 USC § 922(g)(1) is often described in shorthand as prohibiting people convicted of felonies from possessing guns, it is more nuanced than that. In fact, it prohibits people convicted of a “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” from firearms and ammo possession (and some crimes are excluded in 18 USC § 921(a)(20) from the calculus).

Under Pennsylvania law, Bryan’s crime was a misdemeanor, one for which he served probation only. But it was punishable by up to five years imprisonment, regardless of what the legislature called. The maximum statutory penalty is what matters to § 922(g)(1), and that theoretical max prohibited Bryan from gun possession.

After Bryan tried and failed to buy a shotgun, he sued in federal court for a declaratory judgment that § 922(g)(1) violated his 2nd Amendment rights. The district court disagreed, and a three-judge 3rd Circuit panel upheld that denial last November. But then, a majority of current 3rd Circuit appellate judges voted last January to hear the case en banc.

gun160711Last June, the Supreme Court changed the 2nd Amendment landscape in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. In that decision, SCOTUS held “that when the 2nd Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct… 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’.”

The 3rd ruled that the Government had failed to show that “our Republic has a longstanding history and tradition of depriving people like Range of their firearms.” Judge Thomas Hardiman (who was in the running for the Supreme Court seat now occupied by Neil Gorsuch), wrote for the majority. He noted in a footnote that “[e]ven rebels who took part in the 1787 tax uprising in Massachusetts known as Shays’ Rebellion could generally get their weapons back after three years,” and concluded that punishing Bryan Range by revoking his gun rights for an offense that did not involve violence gave lawmakers too much power “to manipulate the 2nd Amendment.” Thus, “§ 922(g)(1) cannot constitutionally strip him of his 2nd Amendment rights.”

Judge Hardiman called the ruling a narrow one, but how that could be so is questionable. Dissenting Judge Cheryl Ann Krause, an Obama appointee to the 3rd Circuit, complained that while it “describes itself as limited ‘to Range’s situation,’ today’s opinion is not designated non-precedential as appropriate for a unique individual case, but has precedential status, necessarily reaching beyond the particular facts presented. It is also telling that it tracks precisely the 5th Circuit’s deeply disturbing opinion in United States v. Rahimi, which, finding no precise historical analogue, struck down as unconstitutional the ban on gun possession by domestic abusers.”

(Note: Rahimi struck down as unconstitutional the ban on gun possession by people subject to domestic violence protection orders, which can be and often are entered without hearings and without counsel. It’s a stretch – if not outright disingenuous – to call someone subject to such an order a “domestic abuser”).

Dissenting Judge Patty Shwartz complained that “[w]hile my colleagues state that their opinion is narrow, the analytical framework they have applied to reach their conclusion renders most, if not all, felon bans unconstitutional.”

gunfreezone170330The New York Times said “Judge Hardiman’s opinion directly addressed many of the core issues raised in the Supreme Court’s decision last June, in expansive language that seemed to suggest that the constitutional foundation of many gun laws was eroding.”

The Range decision created an immediate Circuit split due to last week’s 8th Circuit United States v. Jackson decision, which I wrote about a few days ago. But whether the Government seeks to rush Range to the Supreme Court like it has done with Rahimi is uncertain. Writing in his Sentencing Law and Policy blog, Ohio State University law professor Doug Berman is not convinced the Solicitor General would find Range a good certiorari candidate:

Though the federal government would normally seek certiorari review of this kind of ruling, I wonder if the feds might seek to urge the Supreme Court to take up a different case raising the same issue. Bryan Range’s case seems particularly sympathetic, as he was only convicted nearly three decades ago of making a false statement to obtain food stamps in violation of Pennsylvania law. But, whatever the vehicle, the constitutionality of Section 922(g)(1) is clearly one (of a number of) post-Bruen 2nd Amendment issues the Supreme Court is going to have to confront.

Range v. AG United States, Case No. 21-2835, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 13972 (3d Cir. June 6, 2023)

New York Times, Man Convicted of Nonviolent Crime Can Own Gun, U.S. Court Rules (June 6, 2023)

Associated Press, US appeals court says people convicted of nonviolent offenses shouldn’t face lifetime gun ban (June 6, 2023)

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

Sentencing Law and Policy, En banc Third Circuit rules, based on Bruen, that federal felon-in-possession law is unconstitutional when applied to nonviolent, nondangerous offender (June 6, 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

Drugs, Guns and Rockin’ Appeals – Update for March 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.

SPEAKING OF GUNS…

iloveguns221018… as we were yesterday (at least obliquely) you may recall that last month an Oklahoma district court threw out an 18 USC § 922(g)(3) indictment against a man for possessing a gun along with some personal-use marijuana. The district court dismissal was based on the 2022 Supreme Court New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen decision.

Last Friday, the government filed a notice of appeal, asking the 10th Circuit to review the case.

Another case, Cooper v. Attorney General, brought by three Floridians using medical marijuana, is currently being briefed in the 11th Circuit. That case also questions § 922(g)(3)’s constitutionality.

Order (ECF 36), United States v. Harrison, Case 5:22-cr-00328, 2023 US DistLEXIS 18397 (WDOkla, February 3, 2023)

Marijuana Moment, Justice Department Appeals Federal Court Decision That Struck Down Gun Rights Ban For Marijuana Consumers (March 6, 2023)

New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 US —, 142 SCt 2111 (2022)

Cooper v. Attorney General, Case No 22-13893 (11th Cir)

– Thomas L. Root

Courts Blast Away at Constitutionality of Gun Possession Law – Update for February 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.

APPEALS COURT DECLARES 18 USC § 922(g)(8) UNCONSTITUTIONAL, WHILE ELSEWHERE, DISTRICT COURT OK’S GUN-TOTING POT SMOKERS

The Supreme Court’s June 2022 New York State Rifle and Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen decision claimed another victim last week, as the 5th Circuit held that denying the right to possess guns to people subject to domestic violence protection orders violated the 2nd Amendment.

guns200304“The question presented in this case is not whether prohibiting the possession of firearms by someone subject to a domestic violence restraining order is a laudable policy goal,” the Circuit said. “The question is whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), a specific statute that does so, is constitutional under the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. In the light of N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen… it is not.”

Bruen held that when the 2nd Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, “the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.” The government must then prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.” Bruen, the 5th Circuit said, “clearly fundamentally changed our analysis of laws that implicate the Second Amendment… rendering our prior precedent obsolete.”

creditcardshooting230206Zack was a bad actor. While under a domestic protection order for stalking an ex-girlfriend, he ran amok in December 2020, shooting up houses, blasting away at bad drivers, firing at a police car, and even loosing off five rounds into the air when a credit card was declined at a Whataburger.

The government argued that the 2nd Amendment applies to only “law-abiding, responsible citizens,” neither of which Zack was. But the 5th rejected that interpretation:

Under the Government’s reading, Congress could remove “unordinary” or “irresponsible” or “nonlaw abiding” people — however expediently defined — from the scope of the Second Amendment. Could speeders be stripped of their right to keep and bear arms? Political nonconformists? People who do not recycle or drive an electric vehicle? One easily gets the point: Neither Heller nor Bruen countenances such a malleable scope of the 2nd Amendment’s protections…

The Circuit held that the government had not shown that § 922(g)(8)’s restriction of 2nd Amendment right “fits within our Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation… As a result, § 922(g)(8) falls outside the class of firearm regulations countenanced by the 2nd Amendment.”

gun160711Meanwhile, a Western District of Oklahoma court last Friday dismissed an indictment alleging violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) – prohibiting a drug abuser from possessing a gun – based on Bruen. The defendant had moved to dismiss the indictment because 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) was so vague as to violate 5th Amendment due process. But in a 52-page decision that read more like a law review article than an order granting a pretrial motion, the court ignored due process and applied Bruen instead: “Because the Court concludes that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) violates Harrison’s Second Amendment right to possess a firearm, the Court declines to reach Harrison’s vagueness claim.”

United States v Rahimi, Case No 21-11001, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 2693 (5th Cir. Feb 2, 2023)

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

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

– Thomas L. Root

Courts Chipping Away at Gun Statute in Wake of Bruen – Update for October 18, 2022

Leave a comment

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

ANOTHER WEEK, ANOTHER ATTACK ON 18 USC § 922

iloveguns221018I reported a few weeks ago on a Western District of Texas ruling holding that the ban on people under indictment having guns or ammo (18 USC § 922(n)) was unconstitutional in the wake of last June’s Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v Bruen. Last week, a Southern District of West Virginia district court joined the fracas, holding that 18 USC 922(k) – which prohibits possession of guns with obliterated serial numbers – “implicate conduct that is protected by the Second Amendment… [making] the statute is presumptively unconstitutional” under Bruen.

The West Virginia defendant was caught with a gun that had serial numbers filed off. He was charged with being a felon-in-possession under 18 USC § 922(g)(1) and with violating § 922(k). The district court held that the felon-in-possession statute was constitutional, but that § 922(k) was not. The government could not show that the obliterated serial number statute was “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

gunserialfiled221018Firearms were not required to carry serial numbers until the Gun Control Act of 1968. The “societal problem[s]” addressed by § 922(k) appear to be crime, the Court wrote, “including crime involving stolen firearms, and assisting law enforcement in solving crime. It is difficult to imagine that this societal problem did not exist at the founding. While firearms then were not the same as firearms today, there certainly were gun crimes that might have been more easily investigated if firearms had to be identifiable by a serial number or other mark. The Government has presented no evidence, and the court is not aware of any, that any such requirement existed in 1791.”manyguns190423

Ohio State University law professor Doug Berman, writing in his Sentencing Law and Policy blog, said that “the rejection of Bruen-based attacks on felon-in-possession prohibition is already become quite common. As the Price opinion notes “Relying on the same [‘law-abiding’] dicta in the wake of Bruen, at least nine federal district courts have rejected constitutional challenges to Section 922(g)(1)… [But] based on my first quick read of this opinion, I am not sure I am wholly convinced by the analysis driving either part of the ruling.”

United States v. Price, Case No 2:22-cr-00097, 2022 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 186571 (S.D.W.Va., Oct. 12, 2022)

Sentencing Law and Policy, Notable new district court opinion strikes down federal serial number law but upholds felon possession ban applying Bruen (October 13, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root