First Circuit upholds gun ban for nonviolent felons

(CN) — The First Circuit upheld a federal law Friday prohibiting nonviolent felons from possessing guns, despite the Supreme Court’s landmark Bruen case that expanded gun rights under the Second Amendment.

Carl Langston, who was sentenced to 57 months for possessing a gun despite a previous criminal conviction, appealed his conviction claiming the statute isn’t consistent with the Second Amendment.

He was arrested in February 2021 when police were notified of a scuffle outside of a bar in Portland, Maine. After police found a .45 pistol and a magazine in his pockets, he was indicted and later sentenced on a felon in possession charge.

In his appeal, Langston relied on the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision, which was decided about nine months prior to his sentencing.

The landmark decision significantly expanded gun rights under the Second Amendment, holding that weapons restrictions are constitutional only if they’re “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

Robert Herrick, Langston’s attorney, argued on appeal that there’s no historical tradition for federal felon-in-possession laws that apply to nonviolent crimes such as Langston’s.

There’s “no adequate historical analogue,” Herrick said during oral arguments. “Bruen created a hoop that the government has to jump through, and that hoop is relatively narrow.”

But the First Circuit panel found the court did not err in finding Langston guilty of being a felon in possession because the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly stated those laws are constitutional.

“Thus, on plain-error review, we cannot agree with Langston that the mere fact that the government did not introduce historical evidence to support the constitutionality makes it clear and obvious that Langston’s conviction violates the Second Amendment,” U.S. Circuit Judge Julie Rikelman, a Joe Biden appointee, wrote for the panel.

Lanston also argued on appeal that police officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights by stopping him outside the bar, claiming the officers did not have reasonable suspicion to search him.

The police officers received accounts on the bar scuffle from three informants including the bouncer and bar manager. But Langston claimed these reports detailed two different incidents at the bar and the officers should not have considered information related to the other incident.  

But the First Circuit panel disagreed.

“Considering these informational sources together, we conclude that the totality of the circumstances gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that Langston was about to engage in criminal activity — public fighting, potentially with a gun on hand,” Rikelman wrote.

Langston also argued that the court erred by enhancing his base offense level during sentencing because he possessed a firearm during a felony assault on a police officer.

The panel also rejected this argument, finding that the state of Maine did charge him with assault on an officer in connection with the incident.

U.S. Circuit Judge Sandra Lynch, a Bill Clinton appointee, and U.S. Circuit Judge Lara Montecalvo, another Biden appointee, joined the opinion.

Follow @NikaSchoonover

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit