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

Since 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.”

Defendant 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.

Meanwhile, 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