Can the government ban the possession of firearms by convicted felons when they are no longer in prison? U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves dismissed a prosecution against convicted felon Jessie Bullock after finding a law prohibiting such possession was unconstitutional under the recent Bruen decision.
Jessie Bullock got into a bar fight that ended in someone's death in 1992. Convicted of aggravated assault and manslaughter, he served 16 years in prison and lost "several civil rights, including his right to possess firearms and ammunition.A federal grand jury indicted him in 2018 for being a felon possessing a firearm after law enforcement found he and his wife had a Winchester Model 190 .22 long rifle, 11 rounds of .22 ammunition, and a Ruger .22 revolver in their home. The prosecution sought a prison sentence of up to ten years for Bullock.
The case meandered along its merry way until the defendant filed a motion to dismiss in August 2022. Bullock argued the federal law banning the possession of firearms by convicted felons was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. Fortunately for Bullock, the Jackson jurist agreed.
The issue was whether the government showed the federal ban on felons possessing firearms was "consistent with America's historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Citing the Bruen case, Judge Reeves held:
Firearm restrictions are now preemptively unlawful unless the government can “demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
The Justice Department argued more than 120 U.S. District Court decisions upheld the ban. However, Judge Reeves said the Heller case rejected those cases as precedent. Judge Reeves observed the government did not "submit an expert report from a historian justifying felon disbarment" nor did any historians submit amicus curiae briefs. Judge Reeves opined:
The federal felon‐in‐possession ban was enacted in 1938, not 1791 or 1868—the years the Second and Fourteenth Amend‐ ments were ratified. The government’s brief in this case does not identify a “well‐established and representative historical analogue” from either era supporting the categorical disarmament of tens of millions of Americans who seek to keep firearms in their home for self‐defense. Bruen,
The Court asked Bullock and the Justice Department if it should appoint a professional historian to serve as an "independent expert" in this case. Both parties rejected the request. It appears the Justice Department did not understand the gravity of the Court's request. Judge Reeves stated:
But after Bruen, the burden to prove historical analogues rests on the government, not the defendant. “The United States was thus well aware that Bruen not only placed the burden squarely on it to develop the historical record, but also put it on notice that its failure to do so might be decisive.” United States v. Stambaugh,...
The government’s violent‐and‐dangerous argument is also out of sequence, as the government still had not (and has not today) proven the predicate question: that there is a historical tradition of disarming either the violent or the dangerous. The government had to prove the underlying principle of disarmament before it could apply it to Mr. Bullock.
Judge Reeves moved from discussing precedent to the facts of the actual case. The government showed the defendant has a criminal history but made no "effort to ground in history" his indictment as required under Bruen. However, the government may still prosecute others under this law:
Again, Mr. Bullock presents an as‐applied challenge to § 922(g)(1). He contends that the charge against him, and him only, should be dismissed because “the prosecution has failed to establish a ‘historical tradition’ supporting lifetime criminalization of [his] possession of a firearm.” Docket No. 64 at 9. The Court agrees. In plain English, that means that the charge against Mr. Bullock will be dismissed today, and the federal government may continue to prosecute other persons for violating § 922(g)(1)
Kingfish note: Interesting opinion as Judge Reeves is of the more liberal persuasion. The Justice Department will undoubtedly appeal the case to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The law has been heavily used to prosecute violent repeat offenders. Stay tuned.
45 comments:
Judge Reeves may be more liberal minded, but he is an outstanding judge. He reaches the result the law requires regardless of his personal beliefs. He did that in the Carlos Moore suit about the state flag; he did that when he addressed caps on noneconomic damages; and I'm sure he's done it on other occasions. He has let it be known in a couple of those instances that he didn't agree with the law, but he does what the law requires. We're lucky to have him as one of our federal judges.
In the past couple of months, CA5 - also relying on Bruen - struck down the federal ban on those convicted of domestic violence from owning firearms. Anyone watching could have seen things like this coming down the pike. But most interesting that this came from Carlton Reeves.
When Judge Reeves invited DOJ to let him appoint a historian, I understand its significance. As I recall from KF’s reporting at the time, he understood its significance. I don’t know how the prosecution missed it.
Holy crap, Judge Reeves got the decision right in a case for the first time ever!
If we are going to consider released felons as having served their time hopefully judges quit suspending the majority of the sentences for violent criminals.
Holy cow, how can anyone question the legal intelligence of “Carlos moore”.
“
Awesome!!!!
It is hard for me to believe anyone in or around the Capitol City has respect for this guy!
Thus is the price of L I B E RT Y
Please don’t cite Carlos Moore’s flag lawsuit as an example of where Judge Reeve “got it right.” No legal acumen was required to call bs bs.
For those of you thinking a liberal judge is reasonable, just wait to explain why his giving arms to convicted felons which are responsible for additional murders is acceptable.
@8:11 PM Because he hasn't committed a crime in the 15 years since his release. Just because you dgo to jail doesn't mean you should lose the right to defend yourself.
The Bruen analysis was invented out of whole cloth, and Judge Reeves just shredded it.
"Three decades later, legislative history is out of favor, in part due to Justice Scalia’s advocacy. But all of his critiques apply with equal force to this new Second Amendment regime—the discernment of 'historical tradition.'"
While he was at it, he also butchered Justice Scalia's cherished "Originalism":
"See Antonin Scalia, Originalism: The Lesser Evil, 57 U. Cin. L. Rev. 849, 856-57, 861 (1989) ('[I]t is often exceedingly difficult to plumb the original understanding of an ancient text. Properly done, the task requires the consideration of an enormous mass of material—in the case of the Constitution and its Amendments, for example, to mention only one element, the records of the ratifying debates in all the states. Even beyond that, it requires an evaluation of the reliability of that material—many of the reports of the ratifying debates, for example, are thought to be quite unreliable. And further still, . . . It is, in short, a task sometimes better suited to the historian than the lawyer.'"
. . .
"In Heller, Justice Scalia's opinion for the Court conducted a de novo review of history using the parties' briefs and amicus briefs from academics. That was surprising in light of Justice Scalia's long-held belief that '[s]ign-on, multiple-professor amicus briefs in a case . . . are . . . a political rather than an academic exercise' motivated by 'partisanship' and 'hopes for preferment.'"
8:11: He followed the law.
-8:57
The Fifth Circuit will reverse, and SCOTUS will deny cert, because this court majority won't deal with the bizarre "rationale" of its own decision in Bruen.
This ruling, and those to follow serve to destroy the second amendment. At fist glance they seem to bolster the possession of firearms by citizens, but the true goal is to eventually convince enough of the citizenry that guns are the reason for all of our societal woes.
Gov't must be kept on a very short leash with a choke collar.
Since Judge Reeves is “more of the liberal (not my word) persuasion” one must consider that this ruling may an attempt to get voters on the right (especially suburban women) to become more pro-gun-control.
Leftist judges have a pretty clear history of being pro-criminal while being anti-civil liberties for law abiders so a “liberal” judge ruling like this certainly deserves scrutiny.
A convicted killer with a gun. What could go wrong? Bleeding heart/Obama appointee Reeves got it wrong.
@Bill Dees - spot on.
Judge Reeves was being cute. This opinion was his form of protest against Bruen. He said ok, I'll give you what you want but he said it only applies to this case and not similar prosecutions in his district.
Looks like the Federal Government is still controlling the state of Mississippi with it's Judges. Other states better look out.
@KF, exactly.
Allowing all Felons to vote, while free or incarcerated, should be next based on this.
Kingfish said...
Judge Reeves was being cute. This opinion was his form of protest against Bruen.
Makes sense since the only thing a leftist judge may love more than turning criminals with nothing to lose loose is locking up law abiding tax paying contributors to society with something to lose.
Like Don Henley said/sang, “The more I think about it old Billy was right.”
I believe Judge Reeves is making the point that the Bruen framework, which requires historical analysis, is not a workable method of constitutional interpretation for judges and lawyers. Originalism has the same problems.
I suggest those who comment actually read the opinion. But it's long, so most probably won't.
The Fifth Circuit will keep Judge Reeves on a short leash..
As the resident far-right nutjob here, I think felons should be able to retain their 2A rights. I guess you could make some arguments about violent offenders, etc, but typically if someone decides to obtain a firearm to commit a crime then their status as a felon or non-felon isnt usually the determining factor in their decision making.
@Clay Edwards
That only works if you keep the violent ones locked up. Something that is not going to happen in Jackistan for a long time, if ever. The Marxists love to turn the violent loose on society and I suspect that’s the intention here.
Great. Now, how about ex-felons not losing their right to vote?
@12:20 So just to be clear, the right wing believes that there ARE limits to who should be able to keep and bear arms? Because this case is the first instance in which I have heard grumbling about a 2nd amendment ruling that expands gun rights!
@2:39
12:20 here, I'm good with what the far-right nutjob Clay said, I'm only phrasing it as "if they are safe enough to be out, they should be safe enough to have a gun" because I'd leave a lot of them locked up and they clearly shouldn't have guns in prison.
Will we 'Red Flag' all the recent scholars who are angry because they now have to repay their student loans?
Those people shouldn't be trusted with firearms, or even drawings of firearms. They're angry, resentful, keyed up and gonna snap at any moment.
They gonna take this shit out on somebody!
5:45 PM you might not have to worry about the typical leftist Democrat response of burning s__t down when they don’t get their way as Biden and his leftist pals are on to Plan B with student loans.
Gotta keep those college professor indoctrination hate groups alive and well with tax payer $$$’s.
Can one of the law school grads provide a reasonably short explanation of what this means regarding the statute that prohibits felons from owning or possessing firearms?
Please don't include things like Bruen Framework, since most of us are not attorneys or even gun nuts. I'm a strong supporter of 2A and also own multiple firearms. But I do not think a man who has served his time should be auto-prohibited from possession or ownership.
10:34, In short, I don’t think it changes the statute at all. The decision was limited to this particular defendant.
At most, I think it means that if the U.S. attorney’s office charges someone as a felony in possession of a firearm, they better hope they don’t draw Judge Reeves. And if they do, they’d better have an expert historian who can give the judge the information he said he needs to go forward with a trial.
If I were a felon, I wouldn’t count on this decision to green-light owning a firearm.
Reeves is going to be incredibly disappointed after he realizes most SCOTUS decisions regarding constitutional rights, statutory interpretation and administrative rule-making instruct the lower courts, such as his, to research and rely upon "history". Maybe he should add some historians to his staff to serve as experts. However, that would open him up to charges of "cherry picking" and, as we all know, Judge Reeves would never do that.
12:15: Your Google JD had been revoked.
12:15, Historical analysis is not the same thing as stare decisis. If you actually know this, but posted that comment anyway, then you are intentionally misleading others and should be ashamed of yourself.
3:28 & 4:06 - 12:15 here. Reeves is the one rambling on about needing historians. If he wants to throw a tantrum and be childish & ridiculous in his opinions, we may as well play along.
Let's play. Reeves says he is using the test described in Bruen, so I assume he's read it. Bruen identifies numerous laws and cases that denied 2nd amendment carry rights to various lawbreakers. Also, in Heller, McDonald, and Bruen SCOTUS informs the reader that these decisions do not disturb laws that prohibit felons from possessing arms. Quote Bruen and the opinion writes itself.
That was easy. No historian needed.
4:20 a.m., Neither Heller, McDonald, nor Bruen dealt with a challenge to the federal felon-in-possession statute. So those comments constitute dicta, as Judge Reeves pointed out. In other words, they did not decide the question.
Also, as Judge Reeves pointed out, it was Antonin Scalia who warned long ago that only a historian can competently engage in historical analysis. Though he is dead, Justice Scalia still casts a long shadow over some current members of the Court, and over conservative legal scholars.
Note: I like the holdings in Heller and McDonald. I believe that the right to bear arms is a personal right, and that it applies to the states. I exercise that right on a daily basis. But, Scalia is dead and Alito is in over his head.
11:45 AM - My point is that it is trivial to apply the Bruen test, using cases cited in Bruen itself, albeit deciding a different issue, and see that in the history of the understanding of the 2nd amndmt it is common that lawbreakers' 2nd amndmt rights have been restricted; guns confiscated, etc... The practice of strict Federalism in our early history, dictates that the only felon-in-possession laws would be at the state level or lower.
Scalia didn't say that. Reeves puts the actual quote in footnote 4 ("a task sometimes better suited to a historian than a lawyer") from a speech Alia gave. Previously, Reeves quotes from an internal SCOTUS memo Scalia sent to Stevens when Stevens was writing the unanimous opinion in Clinton's Paula Jones case. Oh my word! Uses quotes from the editing process in the Paula Jones case and a public speech, then insults Scalia's jurisprudence. Classy.
Note: The holdings are fine. Reeves didn't write this opinion in good faith. That's all.
6:06, Footnote 4 apparently quotes from a law review article written by Scalia, not a speech.
I have no idea what point you're trying to make in your first paragraph, but I respect your right to try to make it.
-11:45
9:10 - It was a speech. See here. He gave it at UC and the UC law review published it.
My point is felon-in-possession laws are clearly constitutional. I have no idea why you are being so dense on this issue, but I respect your right to do it.
-6:06
4:11, I am underwhelmed by your legal analysis, though your snark is first-rate.
Post a Comment