Video Highlights
- The Supreme Court denied review in a case challenging the federal prohibition on felons possessing ammunition under the Commerce Clause.
- The case involved Mr. Siekens, who was charged with being a felon in possession of two shotgun shells he found in a dumpster.
- The prosecutors initially charged him with being a felon in possession of a firearm, but changed it to being a felon in possession of ammunition.
- Mr. Siekens was sentenced to 70 months of incarceration under the federal law.
- Another case, Rahimi, is trying to challenge a different aspect of the federal gun control laws.
- The Supreme Court did not address the Rahimi case in the order list, indicating that it may be redistributed or addressed later.
- If cert is denied in the Rahimi case, the decision of the three-judge panel will set as precedent in the fifth circuit.
- The Supreme Court denies review of more cases than it grants, making these petitions an uphill battle.
- The outcome of the Rahimi case is still pending and could have significant implications for other circuit courts.
Video Summary
The Supreme Court recently denied review in a case that involved the constitutionality of a federal law prohibiting non-violent felons from possessing ammunition. The case, called Seikins v. U.S., challenged whether Congress had the authority to criminalize interstate possession of ammunition by individuals prohibited from possessing it. The Supreme Court's decision to deny review means that the lower court's decision will stand for now. However, there is still potential for a broader challenge to the issue of felons in possession of firearms or individuals prohibited from possessing firearms due to domestic violence restraining orders.
The case centered around Mr. Seikins, who was arrested on suspicion of stealing a U-Haul in 2019. At the time of his arrest, Mr. Seikins was homeless and survived by scavenging through trash cans and dumpsters. When the police searched the U-Haul, they found various items, including flashlights, old cell phones, lighters, a spy glass, and a 12 gauge shotgun shell in Mr. Seikins' possession.
Initially, the police officers did not believe that the shell was a shotgun shell, mistaking it for a flared launch shell due to the presence of a flare gun in the U-Haul. However, the prosecutors later charged Mr. Seikins with being a felon in possession of a firearm, but changed the charge to being a felon in possession of ammunition after the defense proposed an expert who would testify that the flare launcher was not a firearm.
Mr. Seikins was ultimately sentenced to 70 months of incarceration under the federal law that prohibits felons from possessing firearms or ammunition. This law, known as 18 USC section 922g, makes it a federal crime for anyone previously convicted of a felony to possess firearms or ammunition that have been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
While Mr. Seikins had not purchased the shotgun shells, but had found them in a dumpster, the fifth circuit held, on review, that his mere possession of the shells was enough to sentence him to six years in prison. This case primarily focused on the Commerce Clause challenge, with Mr. Seikins attempting to build on the 1995 landmark case, U.S. v. Lopez.
Another related case, Rahimi, is currently pending and seeks to challenge a different aspect of the federal gun control laws. The case is based on the Supreme Court's recent decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which found that the federal law prohibiting firearms and ammunition possession by individuals with domestic violence restraining orders was a violation of the Second Amendment.
The government has filed a petition for certiorari at the Supreme Court in the Rahimi case, seeking review of the decision that declared the federal law unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court did not address the Rahimi case in the recent order list, leaving its status uncertain. It is possible that the case will be redistributed or addressed later this week.
If cert is ultimately denied in the Rahimi case, the decision of the three-judge panel that declared the federal law unconstitutional will become precedent in the fifth circuit. This outcome is undesirable for the government and potentially for the Supreme Court, as it could serve as an example for other circuit courts to strike down similar laws.
The Supreme Court denies review in more cases than it grants, making it an uphill battle for petitioners. Thousands of petitions are submitted to the Supreme Court each year, but only a few hundred are taken up for review. While the denial of review in the Seikins case was unfortunate, there is still hope for a favorable outcome in the Rahimi case.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court's denial of review in the Seikins case leaves the lower court's decision intact. However, the potential for a broader challenge to felons in possession of firearms or individuals prohibited from possessing firearms remains. The outcome of the Rahimi case, which is still pending, could have significant implications for other circuit courts. As always, it is important to stay informed and updated on these legal developments in order to understand the impact on gun control laws and the Second Amendment rights of individuals.
