On January 27, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that a possession charge cannot deprive an individual from their Second Amendment rights for life, finding no sufficient historical analogue under the Bruen precedent.
The 21-page ruling in United States v. Hembree was issued by judges Higginson, Willett, and Engelhardt.
Charles Hembree was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), based on a 2018 conviction for simple possession of methamphetamine.
The court’s ruling was narrowly tailored to only Mr. Hembree’s conviction, and applying the Bruen precedent, concluded, “We therefore find that the government did not meet its burden to prove that history and tradition support simple possession as a valid felony predicate under § 922(g)(1).”
The decision also included a beautifully-stated summary of its understanding of how individual liberties are protected by our Constitution:
This case vividly illustrates the Constitution’s deliberate redundancy. Individual liberty is preserved not by any single safeguard, but by “four interlocking mechanisms” working in concert: representative government, separation of powers, federalism, and the Bill of Rights. The Framers trusted none of them to suffice on its own.
The opinion also points out a significant issue that will likely have to be addressed by the Supreme Court in that circuit courts have not uniformly applied the Bruen precedent, noting, “Circuits have diverged in application of Bruen‘s framework.”
Specifically, the court addresses the evolving treatment of predicate felony convictions, or a prior felony conviction that qualifies under specific legal criteria to enhance the sentence for a new, subsequent felony conviction.
It notes that theft, violence, and violating the terms of one’s release by possessing arms while on parole “doom a defendant’s as-applied challenge,” while observing that other predicate felony convictions “…are outside these very bounds,” – for example present intoxication from marijuana.
The court states for the record that, “law regarding the interplay between the Second Amendment and § 922(g)(1) is rapidly evolving.”
