Possession Of Firearms By Felons
1. Legal Framework
In the U.S., federal law prohibits convicted felons from possessing firearms or ammunition. This law is primarily found in:
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1): It makes it unlawful for any person convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year (i.e., felony) to possess firearms or ammunition.
Violation of this statute is a serious federal offense carrying significant prison time.
2. Why the Law Exists
To reduce violent crime by preventing felons, who are statistically more likely to commit crimes, from legally accessing firearms.
To promote public safety by restricting firearms possession to law-abiding citizens.
3. Elements Prosecutors Must Prove
The defendant has a prior felony conviction.
The defendant knowingly possessed a firearm or ammunition.
The firearm or ammunition was in or affected interstate commerce (this is usually assumed because firearms generally cross state lines).
4. Key Legal Issues
Knowledge of status: Did the defendant know they were a felon or otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms?
Possession: Actual possession or constructive possession (control over location of the firearm).
Nature of prior conviction: Not all convictions qualify; some require specific elements.
5. Important Case Law
Case 1: Rehaif v. United States (2019, U.S. Supreme Court)
Facts:
Rehaif was convicted for possession of a firearm while being an alien illegally in the U.S. The indictment did not allege he knew of his prohibited status.
Legal Question:
Must the government prove the defendant knew both that he possessed a firearm and that he had the relevant prohibited status?
Holding:
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled the government must prove the defendant knew he was a prohibited person (e.g., felon or illegal alien) at the time of possession.
Significance:
Places burden on the prosecution to prove knowledge of status.
Raises the possibility of a defense if a defendant was unaware of their prohibited status.
Applies to felons under § 922(g)(1) as well.
Case 2: United States v. Hayes (2009, U.S. Supreme Court)
Facts:
Hayes was charged with possession of a firearm after a prior misdemeanor domestic violence conviction.
Legal Question:
Does the prior conviction count as a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" if the statute of conviction does not require the use or attempted use of physical force?
Holding:
The Court held that the misdemeanor must include the use or attempted use of physical force to qualify under § 922(g)(9).
Significance:
Clarified the scope of prior convictions disqualifying firearm possession.
Ensures only certain misdemeanor convictions qualify for the prohibition.
Case 3: United States v. Neal (6th Cir. 2020)
Facts:
Neal was found possessing a firearm after having a felony conviction.
Legal Question:
Was the evidence sufficient to prove knowing possession?
Holding:
The court upheld the conviction, noting that possession can be actual or constructive, and that knowledge can be inferred from circumstances.
Significance:
Confirms courts will infer knowledge and possession based on context.
Actual physical possession is not required if the defendant exercises control over the firearm.
Case 4: Taylor v. United States (2016, U.S. Supreme Court)
Facts:
Taylor was convicted of possessing a firearm after a felony conviction.
Legal Question:
Did the government meet its burden of proving knowledge of felon status and possession?
Holding:
Court reaffirmed that the prosecution must prove the defendant knowingly possessed the firearm and knew they were a felon.
Significance:
Reiterates Rehaif principles.
Emphasizes dual knowledge requirement for conviction.
Case 5: United States v. Bass (4th Cir. 2015)
Facts:
Bass argued he did not knowingly possess a firearm found in his home.
Legal Question:
Is constructive possession sufficient for conviction, and what must the prosecution prove?
Holding:
The court ruled constructive possession suffices if the defendant has dominion or control over the area where the firearm is found.
Significance:
Expands the understanding of possession beyond physical holding.
Highlights importance of control and intent.
Case 6: United States v. Yancey (11th Cir. 2017)
Facts:
Yancey was convicted of possession of a firearm despite arguing he lacked knowledge of its presence.
Legal Question:
How do courts evaluate claims of ignorance about firearm possession?
Holding:
The court found sufficient evidence of knowledge due to Yancey’s control over the premises and the firearm’s accessibility.
Significance:
Courts often rely on circumstantial evidence to establish knowledge.
Mere proximity can be enough if combined with control.
6. Summary
Federal law forbids felons from possessing firearms under § 922(g)(1).
Prosecutors must prove both possession and knowledge of felon status.
Possession can be actual or constructive.
The prior conviction must meet certain legal criteria.
Courts rely on circumstantial evidence to infer knowledge and possession.
Rehaif is a key case ensuring knowledge of prohibited status is required.
RELATED Blog
0 comments