Explore The NRA Universe Of Websites

APPEARS IN News

Tenth Circuit Sidesteps Bruen with Nonviolent Felon Ruling

Monday, February 24, 2025

Tenth Circuit Sidesteps Bruen with Nonviolent Felon Ruling

As NRA-ILA pointed out last week, the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) has prompted a long-overdue reappraisal of the federal law as it pertains to who can be barred from possessing firearms consistent with the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, it hasn’t been all wins for liberty. Some federal courts have continued to uphold firearm prohibitions that have no relationship to America’s historical tradition.

On February 11, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit rejected a challenge to the 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) federal lifetime prohibition on nonviolent felons possessing firearms.

The case involved Melynda Vincent, a Utah woman who was convicted of federal “bank fraud” in 2008. Noting the particulars, Courthouse News explained, “Vincent wrote a fraudulent check for $498.12 at a grocery store in 2008 when she was homeless and fighting off a drug addiction. She … pleaded guilty and was sentenced to probation without imprisonment.”

In the almost two decades since her conviction, Vincent has turned her life around. An earlier court document noted, “Since the time of her offense Vincent graduated from a drug treatment program, earned an undergraduate degree and two graduate degrees.” Moreover, Courthouse News explained, “Today she is a social worker who runs her own practice and works with the Utah Harm Reduction Coalition.” Any proponents of criminal justice reform more concerned with reintegration than doctrinaire anti-gun politics should find the Vincent’s case compelling.

In ruling against Vincent, the Tenth Circuit cited the circuit’s own precedent from the case U.S. v. McCane (2009) which upheld the broad 18 USC 922(g)(1) prohibition. Of course, that case was decided before Bruen explicitly commanded that the courts look to the text, history, and tradition to determine if a given regulation “is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

The Tenth Circuit declared that since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions after McCane did not “indisputably and pellucidly” abrogate their earlier ruling there was no need to rigorously re-examine circuit precedent or engage in the type of analysis Bruen commanded.

While this result was a reminder that some judges continue to ignore the Supreme Court’s repeated admonition that the Second Amendment is not a second class right, there is reason to be optimistic that there could be a coming shift on this issue.

In September, NRA filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit case U.S. v. Duarte, a challenge to the federal lifetime prohibition on firearms possession by nonviolent felons. The brief explained,

America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation allows for the disarmament of dangerous persons—disaffected persons posing a threat to the government and persons with a proven proclivity for violence. But there is no historical tradition of disarming peaceable citizens. Rather,  peaceable citizens—including nonviolent felons and other unvirtuous  persons—were expressly permitted and often required to keep and bear  arms.

Section 922(g)(1) therefore violates the Second Amendment as applied to nonviolent offenders.

Moreover, there are indications that some very prominent jurists are sympathetic to this understanding.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch has repeatedly expressed his dissatisfaction with the widening scope of conduct now classified as felonious and how this deviates from the historical tradition.

The 2021 Supreme Court case Lange v. California involved the question of whether, under the Fourth Amendment, a law enforcement officer may always pursue an individual suspected of having committed a misdemeanor into a home without obtaining a warrant. The Court held that such a categorical exemption to the warrant requirement was impermissible.

During oral arguments there was much discussion on how to treat misdemeanor versus felony conduct in such circumstances. Understanding the creeping expansion of the definition of felony, Gorsuch defended broad Fourth Amendment protections, noting,

we live in a world in which everything has been criminalized. And some professors have even opined that there’s not an American alive who hasn’t committed a felony in some – under some state law.

Gorsuch went on to explain,

what qualified as a felony at common law was -- were very few crimes and they were all punished by the death penalty usually, and today pretty much again anything or everything can be called a felony.

In 2019 U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, then a judge on U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, suggested that firearm possession prohibitions should be tied to dangerousness while dissenting in the case Kanter v. Barr. The case involved the Second Amendment rights of an individual with a felony mail fraud conviction stemming from the almost comically nonviolent crime of selling Medicare non-compliant therapeutic shoe inserts.

Taking issue with the categorical ban on felons possessing firearms, Barrett explained,

History is consistent with common sense: it demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns. But that power extends only to people who are dangerous. Founding-era legislatures did not strip felons of the right to bear arms simply because of their status as felons.

Despite this latest setback in the Tenth Circuit, gun owners should be encouraged by much of the federal judiciary’s renewed interest in protecting Second Amendment rights post-Bruen.

TRENDING NOW
Baltimore Gets Serious on Crime Control, and the Results Speak for Themselves

News  

Monday, July 14, 2025

Baltimore Gets Serious on Crime Control, and the Results Speak for Themselves

As the mid-year mark of 2025 hits, a promising report on crime trends has come out of the City of Baltimore. Surprising news at first glance until you dig deeper into the policy direction the ...

U.K. Moves to Legally De-suppress Suppressors

News  

Monday, July 14, 2025

U.K. Moves to Legally De-suppress Suppressors

On July 4th, President Donald Trump signed into law his “One Big Beautiful Bill,” which included a provision that eliminated the tax stamp fee of $200, but did not deregulate suppressors under the National Firearms ...

President Trump Supports Hunting and Resource Protection with Executive Actions

News  

Monday, July 14, 2025

President Trump Supports Hunting and Resource Protection with Executive Actions

Just as the United States was preparing to celebrate 249 beautiful years, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order on July 3rd establishing the “Make America Beautiful Again" Commission supporting hunters, outdoorsmen, and outdoor recreationists by prioritizing the ...

Legacy Media Finally Acknowledges Politization of Public Health

News  

Monday, July 14, 2025

Legacy Media Finally Acknowledges Politization of Public Health

It appears the editors of The Atlantic are finally willing to entertain an idea that has long been obvious to gun rights supporters.

House Annual Appropriations Process Update

News  

Monday, July 14, 2025

House Annual Appropriations Process Update

As the House Appropriations Committee is putting together legislation to fund the government, NRA-ILA has worked closely with policy makers to ensure several long-standing priorities for gun owners were included in the underlying bills.

U.S. House Passes Reconciliation Bill, Removing Suppressors from the National Firearms Act

News  

Second Amendment  

Thursday, May 22, 2025

U.S. House Passes Reconciliation Bill, Removing Suppressors from the National Firearms Act

Earlier today, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R.1 the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which included Section 2 of the Hearing Protection Act, completely removing suppressors from the National Firearms Act (NFA).

DOJ Declines to Seek Supreme Court Review of Decision Striking Down Federal Laws Prohibiting FFLs From Selling Handguns to 18-to-20-Year-Olds

Thursday, July 10, 2025

DOJ Declines to Seek Supreme Court Review of Decision Striking Down Federal Laws Prohibiting FFLs From Selling Handguns to 18-to-20-Year-Olds

In Reese v. ATF, the Fifth Circuit held that 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(b)(1) and (c)(1)—which together forbid Federal Firearms Licensees from selling handguns to 18-to-20-year-olds—violate the Second Amendment.

NRA-ILA July 2025 Litigation Update

Thursday, July 10, 2025

NRA-ILA July 2025 Litigation Update

In the second quarter of 2025, the National Rifle Association filed two cert petitions in the U.S. Supreme Court and five amicus briefs, while continuing to litigate dozens of ongoing lawsuits across the country.

Florida: Second Amendment Sales Tax Holiday Signed by Governor

Monday, July 7, 2025

Florida: Second Amendment Sales Tax Holiday Signed by Governor

Governor Ron DeSantis recently signed the Florida Budget for Fiscal Year 2025–2026, which includes a Second Amendment sales tax holiday from September 8 through December 31, 2025. The NRA is thankful for Governor DeSantis’ strong ...

Maine: Lawmakers Call for Anti-2A Progressive Professor to Be Fired

Tuesday, July 8, 2025

Maine: Lawmakers Call for Anti-2A Progressive Professor to Be Fired

In case you missed the media firestorm last week, a progressive professor at Eastern Maine Community College in Bangor, Maine, has come under fire for her emails belittling a student for her religious beliefs and views ...

MORE TRENDING +
LESS TRENDING -

More Like This From Around The NRA

NRA ILA

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.