Appeals Court Upholds Ban on Felons Possessing Firearms

A customer shops for a pistol in Tinley Park, Ill., on Dec. 17, 2012. Scott Olson/Getty Images

The U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the Second Amendment right to bear arms does not apply to felons, moving away from a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2022 that guaranteed this right to every American for self-defense.

It also contradicts a ruling in May by the Ninth Circuit that non-violent, convicted felons can own guns.

The First Circuit’s judgment was issued as part of a case in which the defendant, Carl Langston, argued that his conviction for possessing a gun violated his Second Amendment rights. Langston was arrested in February 2021 at a bar in Maine after people complained to police that he was acting aggressively.

Officers secured a pistol and a loaded magazine from Langston’s pocket. In October 2021, a grand jury indicted Langston with a count of violating the federal “felon-in-possession” statute, which prohibits felons from possessing firearms. Langston had previous felony convictions for theft and drug trafficking.

He was eventually sentenced to a 57-month prison term by the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine. He appealed the ruling and the matter wound up in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

On August 2, the appeals court affirmed Langston’s conviction and sentencing while dismissing his Second Amendment argument.

In his appeal, Langston said the “felon-in-possession” statute violated the 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen opinion, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense in public places.

The appeals court pointed out that the Bruen opinion cited an earlier judgment to suggest that the ruling may not be used to cast doubt on the prohibition of firearm possession by felons.

The court concluded that Langston failed to show that the federal “felon-in-possession” statute violated his Second Amendment rights given his previous convictions on drug trafficking and theft. “We therefore reject his Second Amendment challenge,” the court said.

In May, a Ninth Circuit panel ruled that convicted felons can own guns under the Second Amendment. However, the court limited this right to non-violent offenders who re-enter society.

Circuit Judge Milan Smith dissented from that ruling, noting that the U.S. Supreme Court had not clarified the constitutionality of the federal “felon-in-possession” rule.

“One day—likely sooner, rather than later—the Supreme Court will address the constitutionality of [the federal felon firearm ban] or otherwise provide clearer guidance on whether felons are protected by the Second Amendment,” he wrote.

Hawaii Deviates from Bruen Ruling

The Bruen ruling has met with praise from gun rights advocates and criticism from gun control activists.

Some state courts have ruled against the Bruen decision and upheld stricter gun regulation measures, conflicting with the U.S. Supreme Court.

In February, Hawaii’s Supreme Court ruled that the state does not provide a constitutional right to carry firearms in public, a deviation from the Bruen ruling.

“Hawaii’s historical tradition of firearm regulation rules out an individual right to keep and bear arms under the Hawaii Constitution. ... The spirit of Aloha clashes with a federally-mandated lifestyle that lets citizens walk around with deadly weapons during day-to-day activities,” Hawaii’s high court said, adding that Bruen “snubs federalism principles.”

Federal agencies also are tightening gun regulations. In April, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) published a final rule that would have criminalized private gun sales. The rule was challenged by a coalition of states and several organizations, led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

The lawsuit warned that the ATF rule would subject “hundreds of thousands of law-abiding gun owners to presumptions of criminal guilt” for merely practicing their constitutionally protected right to engage in private firearm sales.

In May, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a temporary restraining order, preventing the rule from being implemented against the plaintiffs in the case, which include Gun Owners of America (GOA).

GOA eventually secured a preliminary injunction preventing ATF from imposing the rule against citizens in Texas, Mississippi, Utah, and Louisiana, as well as for GOA members nationwide.

The group called on Congress to halt the rule nationwide.