Fifth Circuit panel reverses notable Second Amednment dismissal of federal felon-in-possession prosecution
I noted in prior posts (assembled below) the work of US District Judge Carlton Reeves in a case after the Supreme Court’s landmark Bruen ruling in which a defendant challenged application of the federal criminal statute prohibiting felons from possessing firearm. Judge Reeves intially asked the parties whether he “should appoint a historian to serve as a consulting expert” before deciding, in a 77-page opinion, that the Second Amendment required dismissal of the indictment in US v. Bullock.
I now see that yesterday, though this three-page per curiam unpublished opinion, the Fifth Circuit reversed citing the Supreme Court’s opinion in Rahimi setting limits on Bruen: “In light of recent precedent, the district court erred when it held that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment as applied to Bullock.” Here is a bit of the fairly brief analysis:
Here, Bullock previously misused a firearm to harm others when he shot one individual, fired into a crowd of others, and in the process killed an innocent passerby. A ban on his ability to possess a firearm “fits neatly” within our Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. See [Rahimi, 144 S. Ct.] at 1898–902….
Bullock’s violent conduct here is also “relevantly similar” to, and arguably more dangerous than, the “prototypical affray [which] involved fighting in public,” the precursor to the “going armed” laws punishable by arms forfeiture. Rahimi, 144 S. Ct. at 1901. And the justification behind going armed laws, to “mitigate demonstrated threats of physical violence,” supports a tradition of disarming individuals like Bullock pursuant to § 922(g)(1), whose underlying convictions stemmed from the threat and commission of violence with a firearm. Id.see United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 470 n.5 (5th Cir. 2024).
The Diaz ruling from a couple of months ago cited here (and blogged here) certainly presaged this outcome, and Bullock is a long way from the best advocate for limits on felon disarming. But Diaz suggests that at least some “modern” felons may not be lawfully disarmed, and it will be interesting to see if and when a Fifth Circuit panel addresses a potentially toughter Second Amendment case.
Prior recent related posts:
- Federal judge orders briefing on whether to appoint historian to resolve challenge to federal felon gun possession ban after Bruen
- Justice Department tells federal district judge “it is unnecessary … to appoint an historian to assist” in resolving defendant’s Second Amendment claim
- US District Court concludes Second Amendment requires dismissal of federal felon-in-possession prosecution
- Fifth Circuit panel rejects Second Amendment challenge to federal felon in possession for defendant with prior car theft offense