3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Issues Rulings Setting Up Critical Fight for Gun Rights
As we have previously covered, in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen, there have been many challenges to existing federal gun laws, including by many non-violent felons who have increasingly argued that their conviction should not automatically preclude them from owning a gun. In two recent rulings, the 3rd Circuit sided with those challengers, ruling that the federal law that bars anyone with a felony conviction from possessing a firearm cannot be enforced against certain people whose old convictions involved no violence or threats in two critical cases. In one case, Williams v. Blanche, Edwards Williams was barred from owning a gun because of two drunk-driving convictions from the early 2000s. Writing for the court, Judge Paul Matey rejected the government’s argument that historical laws disarming “habitual drunkards” justified a lifetime ban, saying that Williams was, “a peaceable citizen capable of bearing arms consistent with the design of the Second Amendment.” In the contrast to Williams, in the other case, United States v. Bost, Judge Stephanos Bibas held that people convicted of crimes showing a risk of violence through firearm misuse may presumptively be disarmed based on those convictions alone. In that case James Bost was previously convicted of making terroristic threats and conspiracy arising from a 2002 carjacking and later challenged his subsequent indictment after he was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. Read together, these cases make clear that in the 3rd Circuit, a felony does not automatically preclude future legal firearm ownership, unless the conviction was for a violent offense or those that involve a risk of violence.
While these are significant developments in the 3rd Circuit, that does not necessarily mean much in other parts of the country including Illinois (which falls in the 7th Circuit). In fact, earlier this year the 7th Circuit found that while the felon-in-possession prohibition was valid on its face when applied to “dangerous” felonies, it expressly declined to weigh in on whether non-violent felons can be disarmed, leaving those in this area in a grey zone until they issue a ruling or the Supreme Court weighs in on the matter. Most likely, these challenges will result in a “circuit split” when one of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals rules in an opposite manner of another or others, and it would be beneficial for the Supreme Court to decide when which decisions are correct and if nonviolent felons can seek legal gun ownership or are actually prohibited from possessing firearms in the first place. Earlier this year the Supreme Court already ruled that an outright prohibition on firearm possession for individuals who use marijuana use or have been convicted of the same was a violation of the Second Amendment. For now, anyone in Illinois or in much of the United States with a felony conviction will face challenges in having their gun rights restored. While the government has rolled out a Federal Firearm Rights Program, that application has not been made available to the general public. If you have been charged for being a felon in possession of a firearm, want to understand whether your criminal record still bars you from possessing a firearm, or want to seek relief from any restriction on firearm possession, contact an experienced criminal defense lawyer who can help guide you through your options, protect your liberty, and discuss any enforcement challenges you can take to or make in court.
