A federal appeals court ruled Friday that the Constitution allows laws barring felons from owning guns, even if their past crimes were non-violent—finding such restrictions consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of disarming individuals deemed dangerous or lawbreaking.
The 11-judge en banc panel rejected a Second Amendment challenge brought by Steven Duarte, a California man with multiple felony convictions. Duarte was arrested after a traffic stop in 2020 and convicted of illegally possessing a handgun.
Duarte argued that the federal law shouldn’t apply to non-violent offenders like him under the Bruen framework, which requires modern gun laws to be rooted in the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
The majority of the court disagreed, however, writing that “felon-in-possession laws, like § 922(g)(1), are presumptively constitutional,” and that early American legislatures had broad authority to disarm those who broke the law, regardless of whether their offenses involved violence.
“Certainly, if the greater punishment of death and estate forfeiture was permissible to punish felons, then the lesser restriction of permanent disarmament is also permissible,” the court majority wrote, adding that “legislatures could disarm on a categorical basis those who present a ’special danger of misuse' of firearms.”
In dissent, Judge Lawrence VanDyke criticized the majority for what he called an overly broad interpretation of legislative authority, warning that their reasoning gives lawmakers “unilateral discretion to disarm anyone by assigning the label ‘felon’ to whatever conduct they desire.”
VanDyke argued that, under Bruen, the government must do more than merely point to a person’s criminal record, adding that in his view, the majority incorrectly and over-broadly concluded that “legislatures can disarm entire classes of individuals, even absent a specific showing of individual dangerousness or propensity to violence.” The decision underscores an ongoing divide in the federal courts over the reach of Bruen and which modern gun restrictions can survive the Supreme Court’s renewed emphasis on historical tradition.
A request for comment on the ruling sent to the office of the public defender representing Duarte was not immediately returned.
In September 2024, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and the National Rifle Association filed a joint amicus brief in the case in support of Duarte. While acknowledging that American history supports disarming those who pose a threat or have shown a proclivity for violence, the groups argued there is no historical basis for permanently disarming individuals who have committed only non-violent crimes.
“It is unconstitutional and immoral for the government to forever disarm people like Mr. Duarte, who committed a non-violent crime, served his time, and successfully reentered society,“ FPC President Brandon Combs said in a statement at the time. ”We will continue to fight to eliminate gun control laws like the one at issue in this case and restore the right to keep and bear arms for all peaceable people.”
Meanwhile, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling could influence how lower courts evaluate other firearm restrictions under Bruen’s test, including those targeting drug users, domestic violence defendants, and individuals with a history of mental health issues.
The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to directly address the constitutionality of firearm bans for non-violent felons. It may eventually be forced to, after ordering a lower court in March to reconsider a similar case—Morrissette v. United States—in light of its 2024 ruling in United States v. Rahimi. In that 8–1 decision, the justices upheld the disarmament of individuals under domestic violence restraining orders, finding such restrictions consistent with historical laws targeting those who pose a credible threat to public safety.
