United States of America v. Steven Duarte, aka Shorty

Los Angeles, California criminal defense lawyer represented Steven Duarte, aka Shorty.



Duarte was convicted of possessing a firearm after being convicted of two non-violent felonies: vandalism and evading a peace officer.



The law that Duarte was convicted under, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), prohibits anyone with a felony conviction from possessing a firearm.



Duarte argued that the law violated the Second Amendment.



Outcome



The Ninth Circuit reversed Duarte's conviction, ruling that the law violated the Second Amendment as applied to Duarte.



The court held that the government failed to show that permanently depriving Duarte of his Second Amendment rights was consistent with the nation's history.



Significance



The case was a major decision that temporarily aligned the Ninth Circuit with the Third Circuit in permitting some challenges to the felon possession ban.



The case highlights the issue of racial disparities in the criminal legal system.



* * *

Criminal Law/Second Amendment



Reversing the district court’s judgment, the panel vacated Steven Duarte’s conviction for violating 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(g)(1), which makes it a crime for any person to possess a firearm if he has been convicted of an offense

punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. On appeal, Duarte challenged his conviction on Second

Amendment grounds, which the panel reviewed de novo rather than for plain error because Duarte had good cause for

not raising the claim in the district court when United States v. Vongxay, 594 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2010), foreclosed the

argument.



The panel held that under New York State Rifle & Pistol

Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), § 922(g)(1) violates the

Second Amendment as applied to Duarte, a non-violent

offender who has served his time in prison and reentered

society; and that Vongxay, which did not apply the mode of

analysis that Bruen later established and now requires courts

to perform, is clearly irreconcilable with Bruen.

Applying Bruen’s two-step, text-and-history framework,

the panel concluded (1) Duarte’s weapon, a handgun, is an

“arm” within the meaning of the Second Amendment’s text,

that Duarte’s “proposed course of conduct—carrying [a]

handgun[] publicly for self-defense”—falls within the

Second Amendment’s plain language, and that Duarte is part

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

USA V. D UARTE 3



of “the people” whom the Second Amendment protects

because he is an American citizen; and (2) the Government

failed to prove that § 922(g)(1)’s categorical prohibition, as

applied to Duarte, “is part of the historic tradition that

delimits the outer bounds of the” Second Amendment right.

Judge M. Smith dissented. He wrote that until an

intervening higher authority that is clearly irreconcilable

with Vongxay is handed down, a three-judge panel is bound

by that decision. He wrote that Bruen, which did not

overrule Vongxay, reiterates that the Second Amendment

right belongs only to law-abiding citizens; and that Duarte’s

Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1), as applied to

nonviolent offenders, is therefore fo



See: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/05/09/22-50048.pdf

Reversed