Tag Archives: second amendment

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

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

Third Circuit May Be Gunning for § 922(g) Felon-In-Possession – Update for January 10, 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.

3RD CIRCUIT CALLS FOR EN BANC REHEARING ON WHETHER FELON-IN-POSSESSION IS CONSTITUTIONAL

On November 16, 2022, the 3rd Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the 18 USC § 922(g)(1) felon-in-possession statute. That ruling has just been vacated (and may be in jeopardy).

gun160711Bryan Range, who had been sentenced to probation a quarter century ago for $2,500 in food stamp fraud, had sued the Attorney General for the right to buy a gun, arguing that after last June’s Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v Bruen, § 922(g)(1)’s denial of his right to own a gun because of a prior felony conviction was a 2nd Amendment violation.

In November, a three-judge panel denied Bryan’s claim in a per curiam opinion. This normally suggests the panel found the holding was so unremarkable as not to require a signed decision. In this case,  however, the panel said it was so issued to “reflect both its unanimity and the highly collaborative nature of its preparation.”

The lengthy order held that Bryan’s 25-year-old “conviction places him outside the class of people traditionally entitled to 2nd Amendment rights.”

Last Friday, the Circuit granted Bryan’s petition and ordered rehearing in front of all 14 of the appellate court’s judges on February 15th.

iloveguns221018The speed with which the full Court ordered rehearing – just three days after Bryan filed his petition – suggests a majority of the judges on the Circuit are very motivated by the issue. Ohio State University law professor Doug Berman, writing yesterday in his Sentencing Law and Policy blog, observed, “I do not know enough about the particulars of all the Third Circuit judges to make confident predictions about how Range will be resolved after en banc reconsideration. But, generally speaking, full circuits do not take up issues en banc when most of the judges are generally content with the panel outcome.”

If the Court ultimately reverses the per curiam decision, the Circuit would be the first to declare § 922(g) unconstitutional after the Bruen decision.

Order Granting Rehearing, Range v. Attorney General, Case No 21-2835, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 36088 (3d Cir., January 6, 2023)

Sentencing Law and Policy, En banc Third Circuit to reconsider constitutionality of § 922(g)(1)’s felon-in-possession gun prohibition after Bruen (January 9, 2023)

N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 213 L. Ed. 2d 387 (June 23, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

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

Leave a comment

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

BEGINNING OF THE END FOR 18 USC 922?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– Thomas L. Root