Judge Willett thinks that some federal statutes have been interpreted and applied in ways that conflict with the notion that the federal government only has limited and enumerated powers.
Arnett Jackson Bonner has multiple felony convictions. This means he cannot possess a firearm. Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), convicted felons may not “possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.” Because almost all firearms have been shipped or transported across state lines, this operates as a ban on firearm possession. Is this prohibition constitutional?
Current Supreme Court precedent provides that the federal government is one of limited and enumerated powers, and that the federal government’s most expansive powers–to regulate commerce among the several states–is not a plenary power to regulate anything and everything, even when supplemented with the Necessary and Proper Clause. On this basis, in United States v. Lopez, the Court held that a prohibition on possessing guns in schools exceeded Congress’ power to regulate commerce (even though the defendant in that case was facilitating a commercial transaction).
Statutes such as § 922(g)(1) seek to satisfy Lopez by including a jurisdictional element–in this case a requirement that the possession be “in or affecting commerce” or that the gun received crossed state lines–so as not to exceed the scope of the commerce power. But is it that easy? Jurisdictional elements written so broadly would seem to make a mockery of the idea that Congress’ powers are limited and enumerated.
This is the view of at least two judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In United States v. Bonner, Judge Willett wrote a separate concurring opinion (joined by Judge Duncan), suggesting a need to revisit the scope of jurisdictional elements such as those in…
The intricacies of the weaving of such legal arguments gives most a headache because they are above the layman’s mind. This argument is no different. Without individualized assessments, don’t lump people into a category they may not fit in when it comes to their safety and their means to keep them and their families safe. The Feds are wrong on this one.
At the very least, it should be if one didn’t use a gun to commit a crime, they shouldn’t be banned from having a gun. The right to have a firearm in itself will protect many registrants in their homes since the cowards that try to kick in their doors wouldn’t dare if they knew said person could legally have a firearm in the home.
On a related note, I wonder how many of us would run out and buy a gun if allowed to? I know I wouldn’t, at least, not for protection from a home intruder. Skeet shooting, hunting with my son more likely. There are a lot of less lethal options available and I don’t feel compelled to keep, say, a Byrna in the house. How about you folks, would you buy a gun if you could and do you keep something else handy just in case?
I’m in CA, CP offense, not on the registry, but felony prevents me from having a firearm. I doubt I would buy one, but I want my rights restored anyway. Anyone have any ideas?
The 9th Circuit has already ruled that barring non-violent felons from possessing firearms is unconstitutional:
https://lisa-legalinfo.com/2024/05/13/ninth-circuit-says-922g1-unconstitutional-for-nonviolent-felons-update-for-may-13-2024/
So if you are within that circuit, you’ve already been granted relief. But as with a lot of gun control issues, blue states are still trying to subvert it. In Washington State, they automatically take away your gun rights for anywhere from 1-3 years for a “sex offense” with a post-conviction no-contact order, even if it’s a misdemeanor.