Supreme Court Declines to Hear 2nd Amendment Challenge to Federal Gun Law

October 27, 2024 TruthUSA

The justices sent the case back to the 11th Circuit for a second look in light of a recent ruling.

The Supreme Court has avoided a challenge to a federal law prohibiting felons from possessing firearms.

Instead of holding oral arguments in the case brought by Lorenzo Garod Pierre, the court granted the petition on Oct. 21 and overturned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruling that Pierre was appealing.

The Supreme Court did not provide justification for its decision, and no justices dissented.

The Supreme Court instructed the 11th Circuit to reconsider its decision in Pierre’s case in light of the United States v. Rahimi ruling. This decision clarified the methodology for evaluating whether a firearms regulation complies with the Second Amendment.

In the Rahimi case, the justices upheld Section 922(g)(8) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, a federal law that prevents individuals under domestic violence-related restraining orders from owning firearms.

Specifically, they determined that the Second Amendment is not violated when a person is disarmed after being found to pose a credible threat to another person’s safety.

Pierre, in his petition, claimed that he was charged in July 2022 for violating Section 922(g)(1) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code by knowingly possessing a firearm after being convicted of a felony. Details of the previous felony conviction were not provided in court documents.

Pierre sought to have the felony indictment thrown out by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, arguing that it was unconstitutional following the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen ruling in June 2022. In the Bruen case, the Supreme Court determined that firearms restrictions must have a historical precedent and that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms in public for self-defense.

A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the motion, but Pierre objected. The district court upheld the charge, citing prior 11th Circuit decisions that rejected the constitutional challenge even after the Bruen ruling.

Pierre appealed to the 11th Circuit, arguing that his conviction was in violation of the Second Amendment. In such challenges, a litigant argues that a statute or regulation is unconstitutional in a specific case.

On March 12, the 11th Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, citing prior rulings that were binding in the case.

Pierre’s petition argued that since the Bruen ruling, federal appeals courts have been divided on whether a defendant can challenge the basis for depriving them of the right to possess firearms under the Second Amendment.

While the 11th Circuit considers felons unqualified to exercise their Second Amendment rights, the Seventh and Ninth Circuits allow defendants to challenge charges under Section 922(g)(1) on an individual basis.

The petition calls for the Supreme Court to intervene and resolve the split among circuits.

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, in a Sept. 16 brief, argued that the Supreme Court should grant the petition and have the case reviewed by the 11th Circuit in light of the Rahimi ruling which provides the needed legal standard for evaluating the Pierre case.

Prelogar stated that as the Supreme Court vacated judgments in five challenges to Section 922(g)(1) and sent them back to circuit courts for review following the Rahimi decision, the same should be done in this case – the court should grant the petition, vacate the 11th Circuit’s ruling, and send it back for further consideration based on Rahimi.

The Epoch Times reached out for comments from Pierre’s attorney, Brian Taylor Goldman of Holwell, Shuster, and Goldberg in New York City, as well as from the U.S. Department of Justice, but had not received responses at the time of publication.

Source link