Federal Appeals Court: Felon-In-Possession Of A Firearm Law VIOLATES 2nd Amendment! | Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News
Summary
Transcript
We got some really good news here, guys and gals. Gun control on the federal level was just dealt a major blow. And it came out of the Ninth Circuit, which is odd because the Ninth Circuit is usually the most anti-gun circuit. That just goes to show how obviously unconstitutional this federal gun control law is. We’ve heard about certain parts of this law in different parts of the country, and this has to do with non-violent felons. Now, I will say that this ruling only affects how it was applied to this guy in general. However, where it goes from there will be good.
I want to tell you all about it. I also want to thank the sponsor first at CMMG. Guys, American made tools here. Well, actually there in Booneville, Missouri. They make all kinds of cool stuff, dependable stuff. They run. I’ve taken several to high-round count classes. They’ve never let me down. They make different colors, lengths, chamberings, great tools, CMMG. You know where to find them. And use my code GNG10 to save a ton of money on anything you get there. And I just saw this in my screen. I also want to tell you that these are back.
Try start trading the Whoobie Blankets. Whoobie Blankets are back, guys and gals. They have the Black Multi-cam, Tiger Stripe, Al, and obviously Woodland Camo. A little cold around the fire in the yard. You want to stay a little warm? Got you covered. Want to lay it down for a picnic on the grass? Got you covered. Keep the babies warm. Keep it in the truck. Whoobie Blankets are back. They will sell out again. Won’t be there long. Link is down below. Get it before they’re gone. They might not be back. Just to give you a little hint.
All right, so 922G is the Federal Gun Control. And in this case, the part we’re talking about is the felon in possession of a firearm, obviously. And the three-judge panel, 2 to 1, said that just because people are non-violent felons doesn’t mean they lose their second amendment for the rest of their life, especially if they’ve completed their prison sentence. I want you guys. I’m going to give you a quick summary. I’m not going to read the whole case, because it’s 74 pages. A quick summary, so you know what’s going on. And then I’m going to tell you what the next step could be, because the only judge in the Ninth Circuit in this case who said, I don’t agree with this, what the judge used to defend his position was, hey, look, we’ve been violating their rights before, Bruin.
Why can’t we just keep doing it that way? Check this out. Here’s the case on the screen. It’s the United States of America versus Stephen Duarte, AKA Shawty. This case was originally argued December 4th, and the ruling came out yesterday. The three judges were Carlos Bay, Milan, Smith, Jr., and Lawrence Van Dyke. And here’s a summary of the case. Reversing the district court’s judgment, the panel vacated Stephen Duarte’s conviction for violating 18 USC 922G1, 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 the United States v. Vongse, which is a different court case, foreclosed the argument, the panel held that under New York State Rifle and Pistol Association versus Bruin, Section 922G1 violates the Second Amendment as applied to Duarte, a non-violent offender who has served his time in prison and re-entered society, and that Vongse, which did not apply the mode of analysis that Bruin later established, and now requires courts to perform, is clearly irreconcilable with Bruin.
So they’re saying the court case that the dissenting judge pointed at was pre- Bruin and Bruin demands text, history, and tradition is the only test that they have to redo this case and can’t just rely on a previous case. This is good. Applying Bruin’s two-step text and history framework, the panel concluded one, 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 two, the government failed to prove that Section 922G1’s categorical prohibition as applied to Duarte is part of the historic tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the Second Amendment right. Judge M. Smith dissented he wrote that until an intervening higher authority that is clearly irreconcilable with Vange is handed down, a three-judge panel is bound by that decision. He wrote that Bruin, which did not overrule Vange, reiterates that the Second Amendment’s right belongs only to law-abiding citizens, and that Duarte’s Second Amendment challenged to 922G1 as applied to non-violent offenders is therefore foreclosed. Okay, so that’s the two sides.
The two judges who voted in two to one, obviously in favor of getting rid of his conviction for felling in possession of a firearm, they said, you know what? Bruin says that if the action is covered by the plain text by the Second Amendment, well then the government must prove that there is a historical tradition of firearm regulation that is categorically very very similar to the current law. And if you go back to when the Second Amendment was adopted and ratified and implemented, there is no banishment of the right to keep bear arms for non-violent fellens.
Therefore, the law must be vacated, and in this case only as applied to Duarte, however, it might bear well for other non-violent fellens, standby. Here’s Judge B, the judge who wrote the opinion. He said, 18 USC 922G1 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. Stephen Duarte, who has five prior non-violent state criminal convictions, all punishable for more than a year, was charged and convicted under 922G1 after police saw him toss a handgun out of the window of a moving car.
Duarte now challenges the constitutionality of his conviction. He argues that under the Supreme Court’s recent decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association versus Bruin, 922G1 violates the Second Amendment as applied to him, a non-violent offender who has served his time in prison and re-entered society. We agree. Now, just like other challenges right now, like Rahimi and the range case that are before the Supreme Court, sometimes we don’t have the best people end up as plaintiffs to challenge some of the worst laws. Obviously, you need a criminal who will challenge a law that is unconstitutional.
In this case, that’s exactly what’s happening. Let me give you a quick… what happened? Here’s the incident, here’s a quick summary of the incident from the judge’s decision here. On the night of March 20th, 2020, two Inglewood police officers noticed a red infinity auto drive past them with tinted front windows. The officers turned around and trailed the car for a time before seeing it run on a stop sign. When they activated their patrol lights, one of the officers saw the rear passenger later identified as Duarte, rolled the window down and tossed out a handgun. The infinity drove about a block farther before stopping.
The officers approached the window, removed Duarte and the driver from the car and handcuffed them. A search of the car’s interior recovered a loaded magazine wedged between the center console and the front passenger seat. A third officer arrived at the scene and searched the immediate area where he found the discarded handgun, a 380 caliber Smith & Wesson with his magazine missing. One of the officers loaded the magazine into the recovered pistol and it fit, quote, perfectly. A federal grand jury indicted Duarte for possessing a firearm while knowing he had been previously convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year in violation of 18 USC 922 G1.
The indictment referenced Duarte’s five prior nonviolent criminal convictions in California. Vandalism, felon in possession of a firearm, possession of a controlled substance and two convictions for evading a police officer. Each of these convictions carried a possible sense of one year or more in prison. Duarte pleaded not guilty to the charge in the indictment. His case proceeded to trial a jury found him guilty and he received a below-guideline sentence of 51 months in prison. He timely appealed and now challenges his conviction under the Second Amendment. So that’s the case. He was the backseat passenger in a vehicle, tossed the gun out of the car, window, they saw it, got the gun where it was tossed, saw the magazine that was wedged between the front seat and the console and yeah, Bob’s your uncle.
But because he’s a nonviolent felon, meaning he didn’t commit murder, rape, or anything like that, then he’s done his time, he gets his rights back and that’s the way it should be. I think that’s the way our our founders intended it. That if you are no longer a risk to society where they don’t think you can do things like a normal person, then you should still be behind walls in the prison. In this case, he gets his rights back to the Second Amendment. That my friends, or at least in this case, that charge is vacated and that’s what needs to start happening.
Now, what will happen with this case, Jared? I’m a somebody who’s make a comment or send me a message where they say, hey, Jared, I’m a nonviolent felon because of X, Y, or Z, does this affect me? At the moment, no, this case is specific to Duarte, but here’s what happens. I think the government is going to appeal this. They don’t take, especially in the ninth, they don’t take losses, they don’t take that punch on the chin. Well, they will appeal this for an on-bunk review in the ninth, but it is now what is today, May 10th.
Sometime in June, before the end of June, that Rahimi decision is going to be released by the Supreme Court. The Rahimi decision challenges the felon who has, or anybody who has a civil restraining order, domestic violence restraining order. Do they lose their Second Amendment rights? So I think that no matter what happens in that decision that we’re waiting on from the Supreme Court, I think what happens there will affect this case, thus the on-bunk hearing will happen after that. But this is, I think this is a good case to destroy unconstitutional federal gun control laws. Now, somebody is going to say, we shouldn’t be helping out felon, we shouldn’t be helping out criminals, or when you become a criminal, you do this or that.
The people who founded this country were considered criminals for what they did. Don’t let that happen. Like, there are people who just won’t pay taxes and get jammed up. They’re non-violent felons. Should they lose their rights because they think the government shouldn’t steal their money? I’ll leave you with that one. Guys and gals, if you want a wubby blanket, jump on it. They’re going to sell out fast. Check out CMMG. Use my code, GNG10. I love y’all. Please tell your family and your friends that you love them. You never know when you’re going to get a second chance.
God bless you. I’ll see you on the next one. Take care.
See more of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News on their Public Channel and the MPN Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News channel.
