US v. Duarte: NRA Files Amicus Brief Arguing that Firearm Prohibitions for Nonviolent Felons Violate the Second Amendment.

[DadSmith]

NRA-ILA | NRA Files Amicus Brief Arguing that Firearm Prohibitions for Nonviolent Felons Violate the Second Amendment.

On September 24, NRA and the Firearms Policy Coalition filed an amicus brief in United States v. Duarte, a challenge to the federal lifetime prohibition on firearms possession by nonviolent felons.

www.nraila.org

 

[Alamo]

Man with five previous convictions punishable by more than one year in jail has conviction for felon-in-possession overturned by 9th Circuit panel on 2A grounds.

Reversing the district court’s judgment, the panel
vacated Steven Duarte’s conviction for violating 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1), which makes it a crime for any person to
possess a firearm if he has been convicted of an offense
punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.

On appeal, Duarte challenged his conviction on Second
Amendment grounds, which the panel reviewed de novo
rather than for plain error because Duarte had good cause for
not raising the claim in the district court when United States
v. Vongxay, 594 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2010), foreclosed the
argument.

The panel held that under New York State Rifle & Pistol
Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), § 922(g)(1) violates the
Second Amendment as applied to Duarte, a non-violent
offender who has served his time in prison and reentered
society; and that Vongxay, which did not apply the mode of
analysis that Bruen later established and now requires courts
to perform, is clearly irreconcilable with Bruen.

Applying Bruen’s two-step, text-and-history framework,
the panel concluded (1) Duarte’s weapon, a handgun, is an
“arm” within the meaning of the Second Amendment’s text,
that Duarte’s “proposed course of conduct—carrying [a]
handgun[] publicly for self-defense”—falls within the
Second Amendment’s plain language, and that Duarte is part
of “the people” whom the Second Amendment protects
because he is an American citizen; and (2) the Government
failed to prove that § 922(g)(1)’s categorical prohibition, as
applied to Duarte, “is part of the historic tradition that
delimits the outer bounds of the” Second Amendment right.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/05/09/22-50048.pdf

 

[KellyinAvon]

Merged/slightly re-titled. Last SCOTUS session there were two really food non-violent felon cases remanded back to the District Court. With Rahimi in the rear view mirror maybe this will happen in 2025.

 

[IN New Guy]

I've never understood why a person with absolutely no history of violence or gun-crime should be denied firearm ownership. Armed robbery of a convenience store? Absolutely. But should Donald Trump, as an example, be denied firearm ownership over his supposedly lousy bookkeeping? I don't believe so. There should be a difference between those felonies that carry firearms prohibition as a result of conviction, and those felonies that do not.

 

[foszoe]

I've never understood why a person with absolutely no history of violence or gun-crime should be denied firearm ownership. Armed robbery of a convenience store? Absolutely. But should Donald Trump, as an example, be denied firearm ownership over his supposedly lousy bookkeeping? I don't believe so. There should be a difference between those felonies that carry firearms prohibition as a result of conviction, and those felonies that do not.

If we can discriminate between hate speech and free speech we ought to be able to distinguish between violent and nonviolent felons.

There are probably some felons we should allow to vote.