Description: 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

Outcome: Reversed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: