17 Years Ago, She Lost Her Gun Rights for Passing a Bad Check. She Wants SCOTUS To Rectify That Injustice.
Seventeen years ago, Melynda Vincent was convicted of bank fraud because she paid for groceries with a bad check for $498. Although bank fraud can be punished by up to 30 years in prison under federal law, Vincent was sentenced to probation, which she successfully completed before earning three university degrees and launching a career as a social worker. In 2016, she founded the Utah Harm Reduction Coalition, which aims to “provide evidence-based interventions to aid people in reducing health and social harms associated with substance use.”
Vincent, in short, has been law-abiding and productive for many years. But because her 2008 conviction involved a crime punishable by more than a year of incarceration, she permanently lost her Second Amendment rights under 18 USC 922(g)(1). That means she is not legally allowed to own a gun for self-defense or even possess one while hunting with her children. Those burdens, Vincent’s lawyers argue in a Supreme Court petition, are unconstitutional as well as unjust. They say the case, Vincent v. Bondi, provides “an ideal vehicle” for resolving a circuit split on the question of whether the Second Amendment allows the government to disarm people based on nothing more than a nonviolent criminal conviction.
Section 922(g)(1) applies to millions of Americans with no history of violence. According to the Prison Policy Initiative, about 19 million Americans have felony records. In FY 2023, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) reports, just 4.4 percent of federal felony convictions involved violent crimes. Older BJS data indicate that less than a fifth of state felony convictions involve violent offenses. Those numbers, Vincent’s petition says, suggest that “over eighty percent of state offenders and over ninety-five percent of federal offenders have improperly lost their right to self-defense” because of Section 922(g)(1).
Under the test established by the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, the question is whether that policy is “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” No, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit concluded in a 2023 case involving a Pennsylvania man who had been convicted of food stamp fraud. As applied to that man, the 3rd Circuit ruled in Range v. Attorney General, Section 922(g)(1) failed the Bruen test.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit reached a different conclusion in Vincent’s case. In 2023, the appeals court ruled that Bruen did not affect the validity of its prior judgment that the blanket ban imposed by Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional. It noted that the justices had previously suggested, in the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, that “longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons” were consistent with the Second Amendment—language that was quoted in Bruen, which “didn’t appear to question the constitutionality” of such laws.
The Supreme Court subse
Article from Reason.com
The Reason Magazine website is a go-to destination for libertarians seeking cogent analysis, investigative reporting, and thought-provoking commentary. Championing the principles of individual freedom, limited government, and free markets, the site offers a diverse range of articles, videos, and podcasts that challenge conventional wisdom and advocate for libertarian solutions. Whether you’re interested in politics, culture, or technology, Reason provides a unique lens that prioritizes liberty and rational discourse. It’s an essential resource for those who value critical thinking and nuanced debate in the pursuit of a freer society.
