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.
On appeal, Duarte challenged his conviction on Second
Amendment grounds, which the panel reviewed de novo
rather than for plain error because Duarte had good cause for
not raising the claim in the district court when United States
v. Vongxay, 594 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2010), foreclosed the
argument.
The panel held that under New York State Rifle & Pistol
Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), § 922(g)(1) violates the
Second Amendment as applied to Duarte, a non-violent
offender who has served his time in prison and reentered
society; and that Vongxay, which did not apply the mode of
analysis that Bruen later established and now requires courts
to perform, is clearly irreconcilable with Bruen.
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.
Judge M. Smith dissented. He wrote that until an
intervening higher authority that is clearly irreconcilable
with Vongxay is handed down, a three-judge panel is bound
by that decision. He wrote that Bruen, which did not
overrule Vongxay, reiterates that the Second Amendment
right belongs only to law-abiding citizens; and that Duarte’s
Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1), as applied to
nonviolent offenders, is therefore foreclosed.

Originally Posted By fxntime:
Only reason was to provide cover for Hunter. If it wasn't for that, they would have ruled the other way.

Originally Posted By Cycolac:

He lied on the 4473 to get a firearm, isn't that a felony?

Originally Posted By fxntime:
Only reason was to provide cover for Hunter. If it wasn't for that, they would have ruled the other way.