Possession of Firearms 2024 Legal Update

2024 FIREARM LAWS UPDATE

Since the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which created a new legal test for assessing laws that fall within the Second Amendment, courts have decided several more cases that substantially affect gun rights in the United States. The Bruen legal test requires firearm regulations to be consistent with U.S. history and tradition. Following is a recap of some of the most recent and influential court decisions following Bruen.

Supreme Court upholds the federal firearm ban for domestic violence abusers in United States v. Rahimi:

On June 21, 2024, in an 8-1 vote, the Supreme Court upheld the federal law prohibiting any individual subject to a domestic-violence protective order from possessing a firearm. In United States v. Rahimi, the defendant was subject to a protective order for assaulting his girlfriend when police found him in possession of firearms. The defendant pled guilty to unlawfully possessing firearms under a protective order and then appealed on constitutional grounds.

The Supreme Court analyzed The Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 was enacted to prevent a person convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor crime and a person subject to a domestic violence protective order from purchasing and possessing guns and ammunition. In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts refers to early English and American gun laws that have prevented individuals who threatened harm to others from using firearms. The Chief Justice compares these early laws to the Gun Control Act of 1968 and writes that “when an individual poses a clear threat of violence to another, the threatening individual may be disarmed.”

Supreme Court strikes down the ATF’s bump stock ban in Garland v. Cargill:

On June 14, 2024, the Supreme Court struck down the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearm, and Explosives’ (ATF) ban on “bump-stock” devices in Garland v. Cargill. A “bump-stock” is a firearm accessory that allows semiautomatic rifles to fire bullets at a similar rate as a fully automatic weapon. After authorities discovered bump stocks in the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting, the ATF banned bump-stocks, classifying them as “machineguns.” In Cargill, the respondent surrendered his bump stocks due to the ATF’s new regulation and filed a lawsuit against the ATF. The respondent argued that the ATF exceeded its authority with the regulation.

After the Fifth Circuit Court upheld the constitutional challenges, the Supreme Court granted review. The Court held that a bump-stock did not meet the statutory definition of a machinegun. A firearm with a bump-stock does not fire more than one bullet by a single trigger and it is not automatic, two requirements for a machinegun. In striking down the bump stock ban as unconstitutional, the Supreme Court held that the ATF exceeded its authority in classifying a bump stick as a machine gun. 

Supreme Court sent case challenging “felon-in-possession” law to back to lower court in light of Rahimi:

The Supreme Court remanded the “felon-in-possession” challenge in Garland v. Range and sent the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for further consideration in light of its decision in Rahimi. The issue in in Range involves the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) as applied to Mr. Range. The defendant in Range plead guilty to a PA law for making false statements to obtain food stamps, which carried a sentence of up to five years in prison. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) prohibits a person from possessing a firearm if the person has been convicted of a crime with a maximum penalty exceeding one year.

Circuit Court Split on the “Felon-in-Possession” Prohibition

18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) bars any individual convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year from possessing firearms. There is now a split in the Circuit Courts on the application and constitutionality of the federal “felon-in-possession” law. In the Third Circuit, the court held that § 922(g)(1) could not constitutionally apply to the defendant who had a prior felony for making false statements to obtain food stamps as such prohibition was not consistent with U.S. history and tradition. The Ninth Circuit ruled similarly in a separate case, United States v. Duarte, holding that § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutionally applied to the defendant who had five prior, nonviolent criminal convictions under California law.

In contrast, the Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have issued recent decisions upholding the § 922(g)(1) challenges. The focus of these cases will likely boil down to the nature of the underlying conviction – was it a violent or dangerous crime or not?

Other Second Amendment cases on the rise:

            Ghost guns:

            In Garland v. VanDerStok, the Supreme Court will decide (1) Whether “a weapon parts kit that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive” under 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 is a “firearm” regulated by the Gun Control Act of 1968; and (2) whether “a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver” that is “designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver” under 27 C.F.R. § 478.12(c) is a “frame or receiver” regulated by the act.

 Medical marijuana users and gun possession:

In Greene v. Garland, the plaintiffs are challenging §922(g)(3), which prohibits individuals who use medical marijuana from purchasing and/or possessing firearms and ammunition. The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania is set to decide the case, but no hearing date has been set.

Public carry ban:

In Novotny v. Moore, the plaintiffs challenged a MD state law that expands the areas where an individual is prohibited from possessing a firearm. These areas include health care facilities, restaurants, and private buildings opened to the public. The United States District Court of Maryland is set to decide this case, but no hearing date has been set.

Maryland “assault weapon” ban:

Additionally, in Bianchi v. Brown, the plaintiffs have challenged Maryland’s assault weapons ban as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in March. The decision remains pending.

Consult an attorney experienced in firearm laws:

The firearm laws are changing rapidly throughout the country. Since gun offenses can carry stiff penalties, including jail time, make sure that you speak with an experienced firearms law attorney so that you can ensure your compliance with national and local laws. Please contact our office to speak with a criminal defense attorney. These convictions carry collateral consequences that may affect immigration, employment, and receipt of public assistance.