« New Clean Slate Act signed into law in New York with an estimated five million criminal records to be sealed | Main | Alabama and Texas both complete executions »
November 16, 2023
Applying Range, federal judge rules 922(g)(1) violates Second Amendment as applied to person with old DUI conviction
Over at Reason, Jacob Sullum has this effective account of yet another federal district court ruling that a federal criminal gun prohibition violates the Second Amendment. Here is how Sullum's discussion starts (with links from the original):
The federal ban on gun possession by people with certain kinds of criminal records is often described as applying to "felons," but that shorthand is misleading. The provision, 18 USC 922(g)(1), actually covers anyone convicted of "a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year." That is why Pennsylvania resident Edward A. Williams lost his right to own a gun after he was convicted of driving under the influence, a misdemeanor, in 2005. Had Williams defied Section 922(g)(1) by possessing a firearm, he would have been committing a federal felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison.
That consequence violated Williams' Second Amendment rights, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday. U.S. District Judge John Milton Younge's decision in Williams v. Garland tracks the logic of a June ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, which includes Pennsylvania. The latter case, Range v. Attorney General, involved a Pennsylvania man who likewise was convicted of a nonviolent misdemeanor: food stamp fraud. Both cases illustrate the breadth of this "prohibited person" category, which includes many Americans with no history of violence.
The full 11-page ruling in Williams v. Garland is available at this link.
Just some (of many) prior related posts:
- By 6-3 vote, SCOTUS expands Second Amendment rights by striking down NY public-carry licensing requirements
- Are all broad felon-in-possession criminal gun statutes now constitutionally suspect after Bruen?
- Federal judge orders briefing on whether to appoint historian to resolve challenge to federal felon gun possession ban after Bruen
- En banc Third Circuit rules, based on Bruen, that federal felon-in-possession law is unconstitutional when applied to nonviolent, nondangerous offender
- Eighth Circuit panel rejects constitutional challenge to federal felon-in-possession prohibition
- US District Court concludes Second Amendment requires dismissal of federal felon-in-possession prosecution
- Are many district courts ordering Second Amendment briefing in felon-in-possession cases (and are charges and sentencings being impacted)?
- Dissenting from denial of en banc review, Eighth Circuit judges make case that blanket felon disarmament violates the Second Amendment
- Federal court rules Second Amendment precludes felon-in-possession prosecution for defendant facing 15-year ACCA mandatory minimum
November 16, 2023 at 01:21 PM | Permalink
Comments
Sounds about right.
I don't really think the federal government has the Commerce Clause power to pass this law.
Trunp gag order lifted: https://apnews.com/article/trump-letitia-james-fraud-trial-gag-order-c25e51a094dbcdeffbf67589b1c07f37 Of course, this doesn't take away the fact that a partisan hack judge took away Trump's constitutional rights, for which, in any just society, the judge would spend some time in prison.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 16, 2023 4:41:04 PM
Once you get past the list of who is covered by the statute, the actual offense is: "to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce." Unless the Supreme Court completely rewrites its Commerce Clause jurisprudence, that language is enough of a hook to demonstrate that the statute falls within the power to regulate interstate commerce. The problem is, as it is for most commercial goods, most guns do move in interstate commerce or, at least, affect interstate commerce given the number of guns that do move in interstate commerce.
You periodically see cases in the appellate court in which defendants challenge the sufficiency of the "interstate commerce evidence," but they generally lose those appeals.
Posted by: tmm | Nov 16, 2023 5:48:47 PM