By Dave Workman
Editor-in-Chief
A unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel of the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals which struck down the conviction of a Mississippi man for being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, based on an earlier conviction for possession of methamphetamine, violated his rights under the Second Amendment, is causing tremors in the gun rights community.
The case is known as U.S. v. Charles Hembree. Ammoland News is devoting a lengthy report to the ruling, as is attorney Mark W. Smith at the Four Boxes Diner podcast.
Hembree was convicted in 2018 of meth possession in a Mississippi state court. Four years later, in 2022, he was charged with violating federal statute 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which bars firearm possession for life, for anyone convicted of a previous felony.
But Hembree, as noted in the Jan. 27 court ruling, filed a motion to dismiss that indictment, arguing that the lifetime ban “violates the Second Amendment as applied to him in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.”
The federal district court denied the motion, but the Fifth Circuit took Hembree’s appeal.
The only felony conviction on Hembree’s record was for methamphetamine possession. He was not dealing or distributing meth and he was not accused of trafficking drugs or committing any violent act in relation to the meth charge, as noted in the ruling.
The 16-page opinion, written for the court by Judge Stephen A. Higginson, drew a six-page concurrence from Judge Don R. Willett, who observed, “the federal felon-in-possession ban—rests uneasily alongside a bedrock principle: ‘Every law enacted by Congress must be based on one or more of its powers enumerated in the Constitution.’”
Smith, in his podcast, declares the ruling to be “a big deal.” He explains why in a 19 ½-minute discussion posted Monday. Whether it remains so is another matter.
The circuits are split on this issue—whether people convicted of non-violent felonies should retain their Second Amendment rights—and this could lead to a Supreme Court review. For the moment, Smith contends, it might be best to just leave this issue where it stands now.
