The case is about whether non-violent felons can permanently ban gun ownership.
The federal appeals court ruled Friday that the constitution allows laws that prohibit felons from possessing guns, even if past crimes are non-violent.
The 11 Judge En Banc panels rejected the second amendment task raised by Steven Duarte, a California man convicted of multiple felony. Duarte was arrested in 2020 after a traffic stop and was convicted of illegally owning a handgun.
Duarte argued that federal law should not be applied to non-violent offenders like him under the Bruen framework.
However, the majority of courts wrote that “fee laws like §922(g)(1) are presumably constitutional,” and that early American Congress has extensive authority to disarm those who break the law, whether crime is related to violence or not.
“Indeed, if greater punishment for death and property confiscation is allowed to punish a felon, then less limits on permanent disarmament are also permitted,” the court majority wrote, adding that “Congress can disarm people who present a ‘special danger of misuse’ of guns’ based on categories.”
Related Stories
In dissent, Judge Lawrence Vandice criticized the majority for what he called an overly broad interpretation of legislative authorities, warning that their reasoning gives lawmakers “unilateral discretion to disarm someone by assigning a “felony” to any act they desire.”
Vandice argued that under Bluen, the government must do more than simply refer to a person’s criminal history, adding that in his view, the majority concluded that “the whole parliament can disarm an entire class of individuals, and there may even be no concrete display of individual danger or promotion to violence.” The decision highlights the continued disparity in federal courts over the scope of Brune, and highlights which modern gun restrictions can survive new emphasis on the Supreme Court’s historical traditions.
Requests for comment regarding the ruling, sent to the office of a public defense attorney representing Duarte, were not immediately returned.
In September 2024, the Firearms Policy Union (FPC) and the National Rifle Association submitted Amicus Brief in support of Duarte. While acknowledging that American history has supported disarming and showing a tendency to violence, the group argued that there is no historical basis for permanently disarming individuals who have committed only non-violent crimes.
“It is unconstitutional and immoral for the government to disarm people like those who commit non-violent crimes, serve his time, and have been successful in society forever,” FPC President Brandon Combs said in a statement at the time. “We will continue to fight to eliminate the gun control laws that are in question in this case, and restore the right to maintain and endure weapons for all peaceful people.”
Meanwhile, the 9th Circuit ruling could affect how lower courts assess other firearm restrictions based on the Brune test, including those targeting drug users, domestic violence defendants and individuals with history of mental health issues.
The U.S. Supreme Court has not yet directly addressed the constitutionality of the firearms ban for non-violent felonies. Ultimately, after ordering lower courts to reconsider similar cases in March, they may be forced to reconsider similar cases (Morissett vs. United States) in light of the 2024 decision in US vs. Rahimi. In its 8–1 decision, the judge found such restrictions consistent with historical laws that support disarmament of individuals under domestic violence, suppress orders that suppress orders, and target people who pose reliable threats to public safety.
