{"id":106307,"date":"2024-12-19T19:34:18","date_gmt":"2024-12-20T01:34:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=106307"},"modified":"2024-12-19T19:34:18","modified_gmt":"2024-12-20T01:34:18","slug":"106307","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=106307","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"

Federal Appeals Court Upholds Non-Violent Felon Gun Ban<\/a><\/p>\n

The government can permanently disarm somebody convicted of non-violent felonies if their broader criminal history contains violent conduct, a federal appeals court has ruled.<\/p>\n

On Monday, a three-judge panel for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously rejected a Kentucky defendant\u2019s as-applied challenge to his recent conviction for possessing a firearm as a felon. The panel ruled that even if a person is convicted of non-violent felonies, the totality of their criminal record can indicate \u201cdangerousness\u201d that permits disarmament under the Second Amendment.<\/p>\n

\u201cMorton\u2019s criminal record demonstrates dangerousness, specifically that he has committed \u2018violent\u2019 crimes \u2018against the person,\u2019\u201d Judge Rachel Bloomekatz wrote in\u00a0US v. Morton<\/a><\/em>. \u201cSo, his conviction is consistent with the Second Amendment as interpreted in\u00a0Williams<\/em>. Accordingly, \u00a7 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to him.\u201d<\/p>\n

The ruling stands out as the first time the Sixth Circuit has applied its unique standard for adjudicating challenges to the federal felony gun ban\u2014by far the most common Second Amendment claim arising in the courts since the Supreme Court\u2019s landmark\u00a0Bruen<\/em>\u00a0decision. Other circuits have either issued\u00a0blanket rulings upholding<\/a>\u00a0the federal ban\u00a0as constitutional<\/a>\u00a0or struck it down\u00a0in narrow applications<\/a>\u00a0without setting a generalized standard for evaluating other cases. But the Sixth Circuit crafted a standard that only convicted felons who are shown to be \u201cdangerous\u201d can be disarmed in\u00a0an August ruling<\/a>\u00a0upholding the ban.<\/p>\n

Monday\u2019s panel was tasked with applying that new \u201cdangerousness\u201d test to Jaylin Morton.<\/p>\n

Morton was arrested in 2022 on several outstanding warrants and was found to be in possession of multiple handguns. At the time of his arrest, he already had \u201cat least six prior felony convictions.\u201d Those included multiple convictions for possessing a firearm as a felon, evading the police, one for burglary, and one for intimidating a participant in a legal process. He also had multiple non-felony assault convictions, including one for a domestic-violence incident in which he \u201cpunched his then-girlfriend in the head.\u201d<\/p>\n

He was subsequently indicted for possessing a firearm as a felon, which he moved to challenge on the grounds that the Second Amendment does not permit disarming him because his prior felony convictions were for non-violent crimes.<\/p>\n

Drawing on the Sixth Circuit\u2019s earlier ruling from August,\u00a0US v. Williams<\/em>, Judge Bloomekatz said that the court\u2019s controlling precedent recognizes constitutional applications of the lifetime felony gun ban for offenses that \u201cstrongly suggest dangerousness,\u201d particularly \u201ccrimes against the person,\u201d like murder and assault. Bloomekatz said Morton\u2019s criminal conduct \u201cundoubtedly\u201d demonstrates he is violent.<\/p>\n

\u201cAmong other offenses, Morton was previously convicted for wanton endangerment and possessing a firearm as a felon after he shot at his ex-girlfriend and her family, and then showed up at her house a few weeks later and verbally harassed her with a gun on his person,\u201d she wrote. \u201cOn another occasion, Morton was convicted of assault resulting from a domestic-violence incident after he punched his then-girlfriend in the head during an argument.\u201d<\/p>\n

And though the domestic violence incident was not a felony that currently underlies his lifetime firearms ban, she said the court \u201cmay look at Morton\u2019s whole criminal history in assessing dangerousness.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cMoreover, we are not confined to the fact of conviction alone, but may consider how an offense was committed,\u201d she wrote. \u201cAccordingly, Morton\u2019s convictions demonstrate his dangerousness, making \u00a7 922(g)(1) constitutional as applied to him.\u201d<\/p>\n

The decision adds to the growing divergence in how lower courts are handling the federal lifetime gun ban for felons. Even courts that have reached similar conclusions to one another have done so under a variety of approaches, which has resulted in a variety of enforcement standards for the most commonly charged federal gun statute.<\/p>\n

In June, Department of Justice expressed concern over the growing divide and\u00a0asked the Supreme Court<\/a>\u00a0to resolve the matter.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe substantial costs of prolonging uncertainty about the statute\u2019s constitutionality outweigh any benefits of further percolation,\u201d US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said at the time.<\/p>\n

However, the Court\u00a0<\/span>opted to sidestep<\/span><\/a>\u00a0the matter. Instead, it remanded half a dozen requested cases back down to the appellate system to\u00a0<\/span>be reconsidered<\/span>\u00a0in light of its most recent case law.<\/span><\/p>\n

Even as many of those cases have\u00a0returned with unchanged outcomes<\/a>, the Court has not yet taken up one that would resolve the question.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Federal Appeals Court Upholds Non-Violent Felon Gun Ban The government can permanently disarm somebody convicted of non-violent felonies if their broader criminal history contains violent conduct, a federal appeals court has ruled. On Monday, a three-judge panel for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously rejected a Kentucky defendant\u2019s as-applied challenge to his recent conviction … Continue reading “”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23,96,11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-106307","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-courts","category-cowardice","category-crap-for-brains","category-rkba"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/106307","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=106307"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/106307\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":106308,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/106307\/revisions\/106308"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=106307"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=106307"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=106307"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}