by Lillian Tweten
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday that federal bans on convicted felons owning firearms are still constitutional despite a recent Supreme Court decision.
Melynda Vincent, who brought the case to court, is currently banned from possessing a gun because she was charged with fraud after writing a fake check at a grocery store in 2008, according to the ruling. The 10th Circuit Court ruled that although the Supreme Court had released a new decision on gun rights, Vincent still does not have the legal right to own a gun.
“Bruen apparently approved the constitutionality of regulations requiring criminal background checks before applicants could get gun permits,” the court wrote in the decision. “In Bruen, the Court struck down state regulations that had required the showing of a special need before someone could get a license to carry a gun.”
The Supreme Court accepted a similar case, United States v. Rahimi, Zackey, in June, and may release an ultimate decision on whether felons have a right to bear arms. Rahimi, the plaintiff in the case, argued that the court’s decision in Bruen meant that public safety is not a justifiable reason to ban guns, meaning that felons could potentially have the right under the Constitution.
The Tenth Circuit ruled today that it's constitutional to prohibit felons from possessing firearms no matter what crime they committed and how long ago it was. You can read the opinion here: https://t.co/p8tcxP8Gfw pic.twitter.com/lNgJHeHXZI
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) September 15, 2023
Vincent argued that the 2022 Supreme Court decision in N.Y State Rifle & Pistol Assc. v. Bruen had created a new test to determine whether a felon could own a gun or not, the court noted. But the Supreme Court did not extend that right to felons in its decision and even seemed to uphold past precedent that currently prevents convicted felons from owning guns.
“In preserving “shall-issue” regimes and related background checks, the Court arguably implied that it was constitutional to deny firearm licenses to individuals with felony convictions,” the court wrote in the decision. “Bruen’s language thus could support an inference that the Second Amendment doesn’t entitle felons to possess firearms.”
Justice Robert E. Bacharach, who was appointed by then-President Barack Obama in 2012, joined the majority opinion but argued in a concurring opinion that the Supreme Court still needs to provide a clear standard on whether felons have Second Amendment rights. Bacharach hinted that the Supreme Court could overturn the gun ban in the future for individuals convicted of nonviolent felonies.
Vincent can still appeal her case to the Supreme Court, according to guidance from the United States Courts.
– – –
Lillian Tweten is a reporter at Daily Caller News Foundation.
“Rahimi, the plaintiff in the case, argued that the court’s decision in Bruen meant that public safety is not a justifiable reason to ban guns, meaning that felons could potentially have the right under the Constitution.”
“In preserving “shall-issue” regimes and related background checks, the Court arguably implied that it was constitutional to deny firearm licenses to individuals with felony convictions,” the court wrote in the decision. “Bruen’s language thus could support an inference that the Second Amendment doesn’t entitle felons to possess firearms.”
These arguments are utter rubbish. Felons aren’t divested of the right to arms strictly for “public safety,” as their imprisonment is likewise not ordered strictly for public safety. These are PUNISHMENTS for their crimes, which are clearly authorized by the Fifth Amendment. There is no conflict here with any other right – rights may be taken from an individual by “due process of law,” meaning as punishment upon conviction in a court of law for the commission of crimes.
It’s not that the 2nd Amendment “doesn’t entitle felons to possess arms,” it’s that the right to arms can be revoked via due process (as due process can revoke the right to “freedom” by imprisonment).
“Public safety” does not justify the BANNING of guns, and is unconstitutional because it divests citizens of a right without the constitutionally-required due process of LAW (a JUDICIAL, not a legislative process, as recognized by SCOTUS) necessary to do so. Due process can divest an individual of rights FOR CAUSE (the commission of a crime), and although it has a “public safety” component, it is also intended as punishment to the offender and to serve as a deterrent to others. Gun BANS affect the felon and non-felon alike, and lack due process. Divestment of any person from their rights as punishment inflicted upon conviction for crimes has nothing to do with gun bans, and nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment (except to emphasize that the amendment does, in fact, protect an individual right, because it is one of several rights that may be taken from an individual upon conviction for crimes).