In an absolutely astounding Thursday, May 9, ruling out of the far-left 9th Circuit, a three-judge panel on that circuit in the United States Court of Appeals found that a five-time convicted felon who was a member of a Los Angeles street gang has a “right to possess a firearm for self-defense.” That is a major break with law that has generally found felons do not have firearm rights under the 2nd Amendment.
According to the Courthouse News Service, the majority opinion for the divided panel was written by United States Circuit Judge Carlos Bea, who was appointed by George W. Bush. Judge Bea, in his ruling, that news service reported, pointed to the United States Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen.
Judge Bea argued that that case means the government must show, if attempting to ban felon possession of firearms, that there is a historical tradition in the United States of banning such possession of firearms by defendants like Mr. Duarte.
Judge Bea then, the Courthouse News Service reports, argued that the government had failed to show such a tradition, noting that there was no such analogous law at the time the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, and so someone like Mr. Duarte would not have been deprived of his right to bear arms. Judge Bea further argued that Mr. Duarte’s crimes might not have even been considered felonies or misdemeanors in their time.
Judge Bea added, “We do not base our decision on the notion that felons should not be prohibited from possessing firearms,” noting that prohibitions of felon firearm possession often make sense. However, he noted, “the very enumeration of the Second Amendment right in our Constitution takes out of our hands the power to decide for which Americans that right is really worth insisting upon.”
Judge Bea also noted, in the decision, that Duarte’s rights are protected despite his convictions because of his American citizenship. He wrote, “Duarte is an American citizen, and thus one of “the people” whom the Second Amendment protects. The Second Amendment’s plain text and historically understood meaning therefore presumptively guarantee his individual right to possess a firearm for self-defense.”
Continuing, he added that the government did not show a tradition of depriving such people as Duarte of their rights, adding, “The Government failed to rebut that presumption by demonstrating that permanently depriving Duarte of this fundamental right is otherwise consistent with our Nation’s history. We therefore hold that [the prohibition] violates Duarte’s Second Amendment rights and is unconstitutional as applied to him.”
The Courthouse News Service adds that Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California in Los Angeles, believes the case will be reviewed and the decision potentially changed. he said, “That review will probably be influenced by the Supreme Court’s Rahimi case, which deals with whether people subject to domestic violence restraining orders lose their Second Amendment rights, and which is due to come down from the court by June 30. The question in Rahimi and the question in this case aren’t identical, but they share considerable similarities.”
"*" indicates required fields