Matthew Cavedon
Lorenzo Pierre was convicted in July 2022 for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Pierre appealed, arguing that his conviction, as applied, violates the Second Amendment. On appeal, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit twice affirmed Pierre’s conviction, following circuit precedent. Pierre is now asking the full court to decide whether a criminal defendant may raise an as-applied Second Amendment challenge to the federal “felon-in-possession” law.
This law imposes a categorical, lifetime ban on firearm possession for any individual who has been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term of more than one year. Since the passage of this law, tens of thousands of such offenses—many of which society would not deem morally wrong—have been added to the books. Many of these crimes are neither particularly serious nor indicative of danger with a firearm, and the underlying conduct—such as cutting a fishing line—would not historically have sufficed to strip the perpetrator of their fundamental right to armed self-defense.
The Cato Institute filed an amicus brief arguing that the categorical disarmament of felons violates the Second Amendment. Exceptions to constitutional rights do not move with the political winds. Congress does not have unfettered power to define what counts as a felony and then use that categorization to abridge Second Amendment rights. History—not legislatures—determines the existence of exceptions to and the scope of individual rights.
In assessing whether a particular defendant can be disarmed, courts must compare prior convictions to historical analogs. Permanently disarming every felon simply for being a felon is unconstitutional.