The recent decision by the Ninth Circuit Court has sparked significant discussion about the Second Amendment rights of convicted felons. This ruling highlights a major shift in how the court views the rights of nonviolent offenders who have served their sentences, particularly regarding firearm possession.
The case in question involved a Los Angeles gang member with five prior felony convictions, who was sentenced to 51 months in federal prison for being a “felon-in-possession.” In a split decision, the Ninth Circuit panel ruled that the blanket prohibition on convicted felons possessing firearms violates their Second Amendment rights. This decision was influenced by the landmark 2022 Supreme Court case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which requires the government to show a historical tradition supporting such prohibitions.
U.S. Circuit Judge Carlos Bea, writing for the majority, argued that there was no historical precedent at the time of the Founding Fathers to support the blanket ban on firearm possession for nonviolent offenders like Steve Duarte. Judge Bea noted that many of Duarte’s offenses would have been considered misdemeanors or non-existent in the 18th and 19th centuries. While Judge Bea acknowledged the policy sense in prohibiting felons from possessing firearms, he emphasized that the Constitution’s enumeration of the Second Amendment right takes this decision out of the judiciary’s hands.
U.S. Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke concurred with Bea, while U.S. District Judge Milan Smith Jr. dissented, arguing that the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision did not invalidate existing Ninth Circuit law, which holds that the Second Amendment rights belong only to law-abiding citizens.
Ruling Marks Significant Shift In Ninth Circuit Court
This ruling marks a significant shift in Ninth Circuit law and contrasts with the stance adopted by many other circuits. However, it aligns with the Third Circuit’s decision in Range v. Attorney General, which similarly found that nonviolent offenders should not be categorically deprived of their Second Amendment rights.
It is important to note that the majority opinion leaves open the possibility that violent felons could still be prohibited from owning firearms after serving their sentences. The court suggested that crimes traditionally punished with severe penalties such as death, forfeiture of the estate, or life sentences in the 18th and 19th centuries might justify permanent loss of Second Amendment rights.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office Office Defends Conviction
The U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles, which defended Duarte’s conviction, declined to comment on the ruling. However, it is likely that federal prosecutors will seek an en banc review of the decision, meaning all the judges of the Ninth Circuit would hear the case. This review could be influenced by the upcoming Supreme Court decision in the Rahimi case, which deals with whether individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders lose their Second Amendment rights.
This ruling has significant implications for the legal landscape surrounding Second Amendment rights and convicted felons. As a criminal defense attorney, I understand the complexities and nuances of gun rights and Second Amendment Rights. If you or someone you know is facing similar legal challenges, it is crucial to seek experienced legal representation to navigate this evolving area of law.
Call Edward Johnson & Associates To Defend Your Rights
If you are dealing with legal issues related to firearm possession or any other criminal defense matters, it is essential to have skilled legal representation on your side. Call the Illinois UUW lawyers at Edward Johnson & Associates P.C., by calling 708-762-8666 to receive your free consultation.