Duarte v US (was US v Duarte) - Non-violent felon lifetime prohibition

[Euler]

18 USC 922(g)(1) prohibits felons (and some misdemeanants) from possessing firearms for life.

On May 9, a panel decision in CA9 ruled that 18 USC 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to Duarte, a non-violent felon. (docket)

Decision said:

Reversing the district court's judgment, the panel vacated Steven Duarte's conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which makes it a crime for any person to possess a firearm if he has been convicted of an offense punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.
...
Applying Bruen's two-step, text-and-history framework, the panel concluded (1) Duarte's weapon, a handgun, is an "arm" within the meaning of the Second Amendment's text, that Duarte's "proposed course of conduct -- carrying [a] handgun[] publicly for self-defense" -- falls within the Second Amendment's plain language, and that Duarte is part of "the people" whom the Second Amendment protects because he is an American citizen; and (2) the Government failed to prove that § 922(g)(1)'s categorical prohibition, as applied to Duarte, "is part of the historic tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the" Second Amendment right.
...

Edited October 29, 2025 at 02:49 AM by Euler
US v Duarte → Duarte v US

[MrTriple]

This is where I hope the Supreme Court crafts a very clear-cut but carefully worded opinion in Rahimi. It's insufficient to merely adopt a standard of dangerousness without explicitly clarifying that "dangerousness" is only valid in the context of an actual criminal conviction. Otherwise, the blue states will use the mere accusation to disarm people.

[EdDinIL]

In plain English, does that mean CA9 said Duarte can legally carry publicly, or does that decision not affect California law, which I assume still says "nope"?

[mab22]

On 5/10/2024 at 3:08 PM, EdDinIL said:

In plain English, does that mean CA9 said Duarte can legally carry publicly, or does that decision not affect California law, which I assume still says "nope"?

 

My emphasis added, I believe that is a yes!

I do not see where it says he had to have a permission slip either.

 

Duarte's weapon, a handgun, is an "arm" within the meaning of the Second Amendment's text, that Duarte's "proposed course of conduct -- carrying [a] handgun[] publicly for self-defense" -- falls within the Second Amendment's plain language, and that Duarte is part of "the people" whom the Second Amendment protects because he is an American citizen;

 

 

Edited May 10, 2024 at 09:48 PM by mab22

[yurimodin]

On 5/10/2024 at 3:08 PM, EdDinIL said:

In plain English, does that mean CA9 said Duarte can legally carry publicly, or does that decision not affect California law, which I assume still says "nope"?

This going to get Easterbrooked in En Banc

[Euler]

Rahimi wasn't ever convicted of anything, much less a felony (although arguably he should have been convicted of lots of things). He had his 2A rights suspended because of a civil order, so that's a different issue.

Duarte was previously convicted of felonies.

• Vandalism (2013)
• Firearm possession (2016) - extra irony points that firearm possession can be the basis to prohibit firearm possession (S&W Bodyguard 380, BTW)
• Evading a police officer (2016)
• Drug possession (2016)
• Evading a police officer (2019)

[TomKoz]

Seems like the CA9 panel got it right !

[MrTriple]

On 5/10/2024 at 5:22 PM, Euler said:

Rahimi wasn't ever convicted of anything, much less a felony (although arguably he should have been convicted of lots of things). He had his 2A rights suspended because of a civil order, so that's a different issue.

Duarte was previously convicted of felonies.

• Vandalism (2013)
• Firearm possession (2016) - extra irony points that firearm possession can be the basis to prohibit firearm possession (S&W Bodyguard 380, BTW)
• Evading a police officer (2016)
• Drug possession (2016)
• Evading a police officer (2019)

That's certainly true. My concern is that the Supreme Court issues a ruling that leaves very little room for misinterpretation about dangerousness.

[ragsbo]

On 5/10/2024 at 9:09 PM, MrTriple said:

That's certainly true. My concern is that the Supreme Court issues a ruling that leaves very little room for misinterpretation about dangerousness.

The Supreme Court has ruled several times as plain as can be and the lower courts and judges just refuse to follow their rulings! Does not matter what they SC rules if they are not willing to enforce it and make the lower courts toe the line!

[Euler]

[Euler]

Skipping over lots of steps ...

On December 11, 2024, the en banc 9th Circuit re-heard oral arguments.

[Euler]

On May 9, the en banc panel once again overturned the 3-judge panel that had overturned the conviction, ruling that founding era law allowed felons to be executed, so disarming them is not worse. No individualized assessment is required. All felons can be disarmed.

That's a pretty specious argument. In the founding era, the definition of a felony was a capital crime. If a crime wasn't a capital crime, it wasn't a felony. Today we have lots of felonies that are not capital crimes, even in states that still have capital punishment (which is most of them).

On July 25, Duarte asked the US Supreme Court to extend the deadline to file a petition for certiorari. (shadow docket)

On July 30, Kagan granted an extension to September 6.

[Euler]

On August 19, Duarte asked the US Supreme Court again to extend the deadline to file a petition for certiorari to October 6.

[Euler]

On August 21, Kagan granted the extension.

[Euler]

On October 6, Duarte filed his petition for certiorari. (docket)

[Euler]

On October 28, the US waived its right to respond.