Vincent v. Bondi.

No. 21-4121. 2/11/2025. D.Utah. Judge Bacharach. Second Amendment—18 USC § 922(g)(1)—Prohibition on Firearms Possession by Convicted Felons—Presumptive Lawfulness of Prohibition.

February 11, 2025

Vincent was convicted of the federal felony of bank fraud. As a convicted felon, she was prohibited from possessing firearms under 18 USC § 922(g)(1). Vincent sued the US Attorney General, alleging that the Second Amendment prohibits application of § 922(g)(1) to nonviolent offenders. The Tenth Circuit dismissed the action, but the US Supreme Court vacated the dismissal and remanded for the Tenth Circuit to reassess its opinion in light of United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024).

On remand, Vincent argued that in Rahimi, the Supreme Court abrogated United States v. McCane, 573 F.3d 1037 (10th Cir. 2009), where the Tenth Circuit held that § 922(g)(1) does not violate the Second Amendment. In United States v. Curry, 2024 WL 3219693, at *4 n.7 (10th Cir. June 28, 2024) (unpublished), the Tenth Circuit rejected Vincent’s reading of Rahimi. Under the Supreme Court’s remand order, the Tenth Circuit was tasked solely with considering Rahimi’s effect in the present case. It was thus required to follow McCane unless it has been indisputably abrogated. McCane relied on District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626 (2008), in which the Supreme Court instructed that felon dispossession laws are presumptively valid. Rahimi again recognized the presumptive lawfulness of these long-standing prohibitions. Considering cases from other district courts, the Tenth Circuit concluded that McCane remains binding. Further, Vincent’s argument that the Second Amendment protects nonviolent offenders such as herself is unavailable under McCane, which does not draw constitutional distinctions based on the type of felony involved.

The prior opinion was readopted and the dismissal was affirmed.