The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decided Monday that individuals convicted of non-violent felonies can still be permanently prohibited from possessing a firearm if their overall criminal history includes violent conduct.
The unanimous decision by the court, based in Cincinnati, is the first to apply its newly established “dangerousness” standard for adjudicating challenges to the federal felony gun ban.
The case involved Jaylin Morton of Kentucky, who challenged his conviction for firearm possession as a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
In United States v. Morton, his attorneys argued that Morton’s conviction for non-violent felonies should not preclude him from possessing firearms. However, the panel determined that Morton’s total criminal record demonstrated sufficient “dangerousness” to justify the ban.
“Morton’s criminal record demonstrates dangerousness, specifically that he has committed ‘violent’ crimes ‘against the person,’” wrote Judge Rachel Bloomekatz, who authored the opinion. “So, his conviction is consistent with the Second Amendment as interpreted in Williams. Accordingly, § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to him.”
Morton had been arrested for several outstanding warrants in 2022, and had a number of handguns in his possession. He had at least six felony convictions, including possession of a firearm as a felon, burglary, and intimidating a person. Among his priors, he shot at his ex-girlfriend and her family once and later showed up to her home and harassed her, while having a gun on his person. He also had a domestic violence conviction and other non-felony convictions.
Earlier this year, the Sixth Circuit established a framework for evaluating challenges to the federal felony gun ban that takes a look at the persons overall criminal history. The ruling leaves the courts with wide latitude to determine whether a person is simply too reckless and law-breaking to have a weapon.
The court’s interpretation aligns with the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision, which brought in historical context in Second Amendment cases but also left judges latitude in determining whether someone poses a threat to public safety.
More than 8,000 people are convicted for unlawful possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) every year. According to the United States Sentencing Commission, nine out of 10 of those cases involve gun possession by a felon, while firearm prosecutions are the third-most common federal offense.
Monday’s decision cements the Sixth Circuit’s stance that convicted felons with violent histories can be deemed a danger to society and thus barred from owning firearms.
The ruling has implications for Second Amendment litigation, as challenges to the federal felony gun ban have increased since the Bruen decision. By requiring an individualized assessment of “dangerousness,” the Sixth Circuit has given judges the power to make individualized determinations.
These decisions mean nothing when the corpse occupying the White House pardons thousands of criminals taxpayers spent millions on prosecuting just to be set free to find their next victim.
Yes because two things. Trump did the same thing and 1500 non-violent pot smokers should rot in jail while the MAGA’ts who shyt in the capitol should have never been put in jail. Y’all MAGAts are stoooopid.
The guy is a criminal who will get and possess a firearm whether or not it is “Lawful”. Although I understand the 2A concerns here, there should be balance involved.
Well I don’t think this guy should be allowed to have guns.
He shot at people illegally.
Nuff said.
I knew a guy out in the Bush that had thumped on his wife a couple of times and as a result had a felony, I used to see him out hunting all the time, but there was no one right there telling him that he couldn’t do it. And I kind of saw his excuse because out in the bush, a guy’s got to be able to eat and feed his family. He was banned from school property, though except for when given special permission by the principal in accordance to school district policy.
Next(!!!) … Will be “dangerous” language, however they decide to define that!
So the second amendment is now devoted by government on who is good and who is naughty?
The amendment is quite clear so back to court we go.
The gun problem is easy to fix
1. You kill someone with a gun then you get the death penalty with no appeal no years of trial and delays your caught red handed then you pay.
2. You use a gun in a crime you get life with no parole. You assault anyone you go to jail for 25 years with no parole.
Yes jails will cost but look at the cost of crime on the public.
3
GOOD! I understand that these wing nuts will still be able to acquire illegal weapons but at least it will slow down the process. There HAS to be some sort of retribution for criminal behavior.
When your anger gets the best of you, courts often have defendants do anger management. When your driving causes issues, courts can order defendants to do driving classes.
Has a court EVER ordered a defendant to take gun safety classes?
Just curious.
This story doesn’t match the headline.
This guy is a violent felon, exactly the kind of person who should not have a gun. He shot at someone, he broke into someone’s home- both of those crimes are violent felonies.
Federal law: The Armed Career Criminal Act prosecutes burglary as a violent crime.
State law: Depending on the circumstances, burglary can be considered a violent crime in state law.
Sentencing: Burglary is sentenced according to violent crime guidelines under the United States Sentencing Guidelines.
Criminal laws: Criminal laws often regard burglary without violence as a violent crime.
If they’re bad enough to be stripped of the right of armed self defense. Why aren’t they still in custody??
^^^This right here. If punishment phase has been completed, full restoration of rights should be automatic.
One is either Pro-2A, or not.
This case isn’t over though. It’ll go to SCOTUS.
Drunks still have drivers license. For a while.
Very different.
Driving is a privilege, not a right.
When people pose a threat to other citizens, their right to self-defense rightfully takes the back seat. Simple. It’s the price they pay for their anti-social behavior.
“…if their overall criminal history includes violent conduct.” Isn’t the meaning of “violent” changing? The evil tries to label MAGA and Christians as violent. Think twice before supporting anything!
On-duty in the ER. Don’t have to think twice about ensuring a person with violent history has more chance of being violent again toward whomever … babies, dogs, women, children, themselves. Prioritize less havoc wreaked during violent episodes and rehabilitation, not whether they’ve right to include possession of a firearm.
Bravo bravo bravo!
As a Second Amendment ‘originalist,’ I still see no problem whatsoever with this violence-prone convicted felon being prohibited from possessing a firearm. However, the ‘dangerousness’ standard should be codified and particularly subject to a jury’s verdict, and not based on the mere determination of a judge.
Those who are concerned with the felony 18 and under in possession of a firearm never grew up on a farm or ranch. And who decides “dangerousness”? More petty bureaucrats?
That definition is akin for the legislature
How nice to have someone to interpret the plain and simple English language of the US Constitution since cannot speak nor understand it.
Comments are closed.