Three major gun-rights organizations are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a case challenging the federal government’s lifetime firearm prohibition for a man whose underlying felony was a nonviolent marijuana cultivation conviction.
The National Rifle Association (NRA), Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) filed an amicus brief in Johnson v. United States, supporting Joseph Frederick Johnson’s petition for Supreme Court review.
Johnson’s sole predicate felony is a 2015 Colorado marijuana cultivation conviction. He has not been convicted of a violent offense, but federal law prohibits him from possessing firearms or ammunition because the cultivation offense was punishable by more than one year in prison.
A federal grand jury subsequently charged Johnson with two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Johnson moved to dismiss the charges, arguing that permanently disarming him based on a nonviolent marijuana offense violated the Second Amendment.
After the district court rejected that argument, Johnson pleaded guilty while preserving his right to appeal and was sentenced to 366 days in prison.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld the ruling in April, saying its existing precedent requires § 922(g)(1) to be upheld against Second Amendment challenges involving anyone with a prior felony conviction, including people convicted of nonviolent felonies.
Johnson’s Supreme Court petition asks whether a person whose sole predicate felony is nonviolent may bring an as-applied Second Amendment challenge to the federal law’s permanent deprivation of firearm rights.
In their newly filed brief, the NRA, FPC and SAF argue that historical firearm regulations support disarming people considered dangerous, but do not establish a tradition of permanently disarming people solely because they committed nonviolent crimes.
The organizations also argue that the Supreme Court’s previous description of felon firearm restrictions as “presumptively lawful” does not make those restrictions immune from constitutional challenges. Under the historical framework established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, they contend, the government must demonstrate that a firearm restriction is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition.
The case is Supreme Court docket No. 26-270. Johnson filed his petition on August 27, and the case has been distributed for the justices’ October 9 conference.
Related posts:
Oklahoma Supreme Court Strikes Down Law Restricting Ballot Initiatives, Clearing Obstacle for Future...
Illinois Agrees to Pause Hemp THC Enforcement for 250 Businesses Until November 19 Amid Federal Laws...
