In a surprising move, the far-left American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) last week filed a court brief in the liberal Ninth Circuit that mirrors similar briefs filed by the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC). filed with the District Court of Appeal. ).
The case, United States v. Duarte, was brought by the federal government against Stephen Duarte, a low-level felon who had his firearms permanently removed. He was convicted under federal law 922(g)1, which makes it a felony for anyone previously convicted of a “crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year” to possess a firearm again. He argued that his Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms” had been violated, but lower courts disagreed.
On appeal, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit drew on the precedents of both Bruen (New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen) and Rahimi (United States v. Rahimi): The judgment was upheld and reversed. In Bruen, Mr. Duarte first had to prove that he was an American citizen and had the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. And the federal government had to show that historical parallels existed to support the federal law. In the Rahimi case, the high court ruled that an individual may be temporarily disarmed only if the citizen poses a “credible threat to the physical safety of others.”
lower court rejected
The case is currently being heard in the Ninth Circuit (en banc court), where various Second Amendment advocacy groups, including the NRA and FPC, argue that, yes, Mr. Duarte is an American citizen and that the U.S. Constitution He is entitled to his rights under Section 2, and no, there is no historical precedent for the federal law under which he was convicted (and will spend the next four years in prison).
The ACLU's brief was similar to the brief filed in this case, but added:
To secure a conviction, the government need only prove that a person with some predicate (a criminal record) “possessed” a firearm for any reason and for any period of time.
A person's previous convictions may only be for misdemeanors, making them eligible for conviction even if the person is not actually incarcerated.
For most temporary, harmless, or merely constructive “possessions” of firearms, people can be convicted under section 922(g)(1).
The broad scope of the Act thus encompasses a vast array of conduct that does not justify a lifetime ban, such as pain of imprisonment and possession of firearms.
thousands were imprisoned
The federal government has used this law in thousands of cases, successfully disarming citizens for the most minor crimes. The ACLU added in a footnote:
The implications of the government's position are alarming, to say the least. If the government is right about who constitutes the “political community,” it could potentially strip people convicted of felonies of other protections in the Bill of Rights. Heller and Rahimi abandon that infinite logic.
Governments, both federal and state, tend to increase their suppression and violation of valuable rights over time. The ACLU points out that from previous rulings, “Congress created 57 new crimes each year from 2000 to 2007,” and that “every new felony Congress (or state legislature) creates, no matter how minor. The same is true whether you are away from a crime or a threat of crime.” Violence — May serve as (ground) for a Section 922(g)1 conviction. ”
The ACLU provided the following example: “(A) A 40-year-old Navy veteran who was convicted of a misdemeanor assault charge stemming from a “fisticuffs,'' served “no jail time'' and was permanently prohibited from possessing a firearm.'' was banned. If you try, you could be convicted of a felony and sentenced to several years in prison. ”
The ACLU noted that more than 10 percent of all federal prosecutions and more than 7,000 of the 64,000 federal convictions last year involved Section 922(g)1.
The ACLU added:
(Section 922(g)(1)) criminalizes possession by anyone convicted of such crimes, including tax evasion, shoplifting, and false statements on welfare applications.
Disarming people simply because they have been convicted of a crime, for reasons unrelated to danger, has no historical support.
Therefore, Mr. Duarte's intact challenge to the law should succeed.
important meaning
The significance of the affirmation of the initial judgment of the three-judge panel is immeasurable. Lower courts are divided on the issue, putting pressure on the high court to resolve it. Constitutional lawyer John D. Rogers writes:
This sets an important precedent within the Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction, which includes several Western states (including Alaska, California, Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington). The decision could affect other circuit courts and could lead to Supreme Court review if similar cases arise across the country.
This decision expanded the scope of the Second Amendment and reinforced the idea that fundamental rights should not be permanently taken away for non-violent crimes.
Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) welcomed the ACLU's participation in the fight, calling their goodwill brief a “remarkable and fresh approach” to the issues raised in the case. said.
