US v. Canada: Canada was convicted by a jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act in part due to a prior South Carolina domestic violence conviction that Fourth Circuit precedent at the time held was a “violent felony.”
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed Canada’s sentence, but vacated his sentence. As to his conviction, Canada argued that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) was facially unconstitutional under NY State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen as a violation of the Second Amendment. The court quickly dispatched with that claim, holding (without any particular analysis) that the statute is facially valid, while leaving open the possibility that the statute could be challenged on an as-applied basis. This allowed the court to bypass fundamental questions about how Bruen applies, including the scope of “the people” and whether history and tradition supports disarming felons (as well as bypassing some procedurally issues regarding the standard of review). As to Canada’s sentence, the court held that because his prior South Carolina offense could be committed recklessly (pursuant to a certified question to the state Supreme Court) it could no longer qualify as an ACCA predicate in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Borden.
NOTE: It’s unclear to me whether Canada’s Second Amendment holding is still good after Rahimi, as the case was also a facial challenge and the Supreme Court resolved as such, instead of holding such challenges couldn’t be made.
No comments:
Post a Comment