Firearm Offenses

The Department of Justice has announced that it will no longer seek criminal penalties against federally licensed firearm dealers for selling handguns to otherwise law-abiding adults between the ages of 18 and 20. DOJ cited an opinion by its Office of Legal Counsel concluding that the prohibitions under 922(b)(1) and (c)(1) are unconstitutional under Bruen. (Link to opinion in post).

In a 6-3 opinion, the Supreme Court struck down Hawaii’s law prohibiting licensed handgun owners from carrying on private property open to the public except with the property owner’s express permission. The Court rejected Hawaii’s historical analogues to laws restricting unauthorized hunting on private property and arguments that Hawaii’s distinctive local traditions affected the analysis under the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court held that 18 USC 922(g)(3), which prohibits firearm possession by unlawful drug users, was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment as applied to a defendant who was charged based on his daily marijuana use. The Court rejected the Government’s historical analogues concerning habitual drunkards, vagrancy, civil-commitment, and surety laws as distinguishable from the categorical ban on anyone who merely uses a marijuana, and there was no individualized proof that marijuana made the defendant more dangerous. The Court’s opinion is narrow and expressly leaves open laws directed at present intoxication, individualized evidence of danger, and restrictions involving certain drugs.

The Supreme Court held that a defendant may not be convicted under both 18 USC 924(c) and 18 USC 924(j), which provides separate penalties when a 924(c) conviction causes death), based on a single act involving a firearm.

In a Fourth Amendment case, the Tenth Circuit answered two questions: is an exterior motel walkway “curtilage,” and can an officer peek through a one-inch gap in window curtains without intruding on one’s reasonable expectation of privacy? In affirming the defendant’s conviction, the panel held that neither violated the Fourth Amendment, a holding that the dissent criticized as “expanding permissible surveillance and eroding privacy.”

The Ninth Circuit vacated a felon-in-possession sentence after holding that Oregon’s aggravated unlawful use of a weapon statute does not qualify as a “crime of violence” under the Guidelines.

This case raises the question: When does the “felon-in-possession” statute not apply to felons? The Eleventh Circuit held that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) applies only to prior felonies punishable by over one year of actual imprisonment, not probation or other consequences, and it vacated the defendant’s conviction for an Alabama Class D felony where the defendant was not subject to any actual prison time based on his specific circumstances. While the statute of conviction authorized over a year of prison for some defendants in certain cases, the panel held that courts considering a prior conviction under 922(g)(1) must apply a “defendant-specific” interpretation and not an “offense-specific” one.

The Seventh Circuit upheld Illinois’s ban on guns in public transit under Bruen, finding it consistent with a historical tradition of restricting firearms in sensitive, crowded places. The court emphasized characteristics of the ban supporting application of the “sensitive places doctrine,” such as the density of the place, the presence of vulnerable populations (namely, children), the furthering of important societal interests, and government control of the space.

The Second Circuit affirmed a conviction for receiving firearms purchased out of state, rejecting a Second Amendment challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(3), which prohibits the interstate transport of firearms. The Court held the statute regulates the mode of acquiring firearms and does not meaningfully burden the right to keep and bear arms, and, in any event, it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition under Bruen.

The Eleventh Circuit reversed the dismissal of a civil complaint brought by a group of medical marijuana users in Florida challenging 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which prohibits firearm possession by unlawful users of controlled substances. The Court held that the Government had not established that disarming state-lawful medical marijuana users is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulations under Bruen.