Supreme Court Vacates Decision of 11th Circuit to Uphold Conviction
Earlier this week the United States Supreme Court reversed the decision of the 11th Circuit of Appeals to uphold the conviction of a man for being a felon in possession of a firearm, but declined to hear the man’s appeal themselves, allowing the Appellate Court another chance to review his appeal in light of recent Supreme Court decisions. As part of our ongoing coverage of challenges to gun restrictions after the Bruen decision, this case presents a unique challenge to the federal prohibition of felons being permanently deprived of their Second Amendment rights. In 2023, Raheem Morrissette was pulled over and officers recovered a gun, a small amount of marijuana, and a digital scale from the vehicle and Mr. Morrissette had “felony convictions for first-degree marijuana possession, third-degree burglary, and first-degree criminal mischief” on his record. He was charged as a felon in possession of a firearm and after his motion to dismiss the indictment arguing that under Bruen that the federal ban on possession of firearms by all felons is unconstitutional was denied, he pled guilty and received a sentence of 57-months in prison and the 11th Circuit upheld his conviction on appeal.
In his petition to the Supreme Court, Raheem Morrissette argues that a lifetime ban for all felons from possessing a firearm, regardless of their underlying felony, is unconstitutional on its face and as it applies to him and others for those convicted of nonviolent felonies. Despite his previous challenge being denied, Mr. Morrissette maintains that at the time of the passing of the Second Amendment, there was “no relevantly similar historical analogue to a lifetime ban on possession of firearms for non-violent felons” going on to give the examples that, “[s]omeone who attempted to evade their taxes twenty years ago and has not committed a crime since, should retain their Second Amendment rights. Someone who committed felony shoplifting at 18 and is now a 40-year-old mother who has never been in trouble since, should retain their Second Amendment rights.” Although the Supreme Court declined to take up the case themselves, it is highly unlikely that any ruling by the 11th Circuit on his case will prevent further appellate circuit splits on challenges to the prohibition against nonviolent felons possessing firearms. Further individual challenges will remain common, particularly since in 2023 alone, 8040 cases at the federal level involved charging individuals with violating the same statute as Mr. Morrissette. In the event the constitutional challenges are sustained, it is unlikely there will be bright lines about what criminal backgrounds, what criminal conduct, and how much time can pass since a conviction, before an individual will no longer be prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm as the test or criteria will likely need to be defined by the Supreme Court. In the meantime, the area is ripe for defense attorneys to challenge the government’s ability to prosecute felons, particularly nonviolent ones, for possessing a firearm. It is important that anyone currently facing charges for a firearm offense have an experienced criminal defense attorney who can challenge the law and preserve the issues for appeal in the event they do not get the charges dismissed at the trial level.
