Last week in United States v. Hemani, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the government may not strip people of their Second Amendment rights or prosecute them for illegal gun possession simply because they are marijuana users. That decision was good news for Alexander Ledvina, an Iowa cannabis consumer who received a four-year prison sentence because he owned guns.
Ledvina, who was 26 when he was arrested in June 2023, has been incarcerated since then. In a recent letter from the federal prison in Memphis, which he wrote on the same day that the Supreme Court decided Hemani but before he knew the outcome, Ledvina reports that he is scheduled to be released on July 15, six days before his 30th birthday, thanks to the expanded “good conduct” and “earned” time credits authorized by the FIRST STEP Act of 2018. Hemani therefore won’t figure in Ledvina’s time behind bars. But it improves his chances of overturning his conviction, which could restore his Second Amendment rights and remove the other lifelong burdens associated with a felony record.
Ledvina’s situation illustrates the potential impact of Hemani. The decision not only constrains future prosecutions but also opens the door to relief for people previously convicted under 18 USC 922(g)(3), which makes it a felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison, for an “unlawful user” of “any controlled substance” to possess a firearm. Many of those convictions will now be subject to challenge, since the Supreme Court said Section 922(g)(3) prosecutions are unconstitutional when they are based on nothing beyond the elements specified by the statute.
The Supreme Court case involved Ali Hemani, a Texas man who admitted he owned a pistol and used marijuana a few times a week. Although that would have been enough to convict him of violating Section 922(g)(3), the Court said the Second Amendment requires more.
Writing for the majority in Hemani, Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that the decision leaves open the possibility that gun-owning drug users can be prosecuted when the evidence indicates that they are “addicted to any controlled substance,” another prohibited category under Section 922(g)(3). Gorsuch also suggested that “the government could bring a prosecution under §922(g)(3) accompanied by individualized proof that the defendant’s use of marijuana (or any other drug) renders him a danger to himself or others.”
Ledvina’s conviction, which followed a bench trial, was based on stipulated facts that did not include such additional evidence. He admitted that he owned guns and that he “used marijuana at least five to six times per week” between March 2022 and July 2022. In that respect, his admissions were similar to Hemani’s, although Ledvina also was convicted of making a false statement during a firearm purchase by denying that he was an “unlawful” drug user, a misrepresentation that is treated as a distinct crime under 18 USC 924(a)(1)(A).
At sentencing, U.S. District Judge C.J. Williams credited additional allegations, including claims that Ledvina had accidentally fired a gun while using cocaine with an acquaintance, that he had sought to collect a debt from that acquaintance by banging on his door, and that he had brandished a gun when confronted by one of that man’s neighbors. Ledvina disputed those allegations, which prosecutors never had to prove at trial.
Those untested claims nevertheless figured in Ledvina’s 51-month sentence, which could have been significantly shorter given his minimal criminal record. That record, Williams noted, was limited to “a couple disorderly conduct things when he was 18 years old.” But based on the “preponderance of the evidence” standard that applies at sentencing, Williams concluded it was more likely than not that the additional allegations were true.
That conclusion is a far cry from the “individualized proof” of dangerousness that Gorsuch said might allow prosecutors to convict a defendant under Section 922(g)(3). If Ledvina’s case had gone to trial under the constraints imposed by Hemani, prosecutors would have had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ledvina was more dangerous than the average cannabis consumer.
Ledvina already had some reason to hope that he could successfully challenge his conviction for illegal gun possession. Last February, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit ruled that Ledvina should have a chance to argue that Section 922(g)(3) is unconstitutional as applied to him. “Without more,” Judge Ralph Erickson wrote in United States v. Ledvina, “drug use generally or marijuana use specifically does not automatically extinguish a person’s Second Amendment right.”
The 8th Circuit vacated Ledvina’s Section 922(g)(3) conviction and remanded the case to Williams’ court for “further proceedings to resolve Ledvina’s Second Amendment as-applied challenge.” In his letter, Ledvina says Williams agreed to delay those proceedings until the Supreme Court decided Hemani.
Despite the questions about the constitutionality of Ledvina’s prosecution, the 8th Circuit affirmed his conviction under Section 924(a)(1)(A), which hinged on the form he filled out when he bought a pistol in July 2022. In addition to that charge, Ledvina could have been prosecuted under 18 USC 922(a)(6), which independently criminalizes the same conduct. And thanks to the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which took effect in June 2022, Ledvina could have been charged with yet another felony: “trafficking in firearms,” which Congress counterintuitively defined broadly enough to encompass drug users who obtain guns.
Those ancillary charges raise questions about the implications of Hemani. Under the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court held, the government cannot disarm someone simply because he uses marijuana, and it cannot punish him for violating that unconstitutional restriction. Does that mean the government also cannot punish him for violating other provisions aimed at reinforcing the ban on gun possession by “prohibited persons”?
According to the Supreme Court, marijuana users generally have a Second Amendment right to buy guns. But they would still be making a false statement by checking “no” in response to the question, “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?”
After Hemani, it is less clear whether a cannabis consumer who buys a gun could be found guilty of “trafficking in firearms.” The definition of that crime includes receipt of a firearm by someone who “knows or has reasonable cause to believe that such receipt would constitute a felony.” But under Hemani, “such receipt” cannot be treated as a felony unless there is additional evidence that the buyer poses a threat to himself or others.
It would be bizarre if a marijuana user had a constitutional right to arms but nevertheless could be sent to prison for answering “no” to a question aimed at denying him that right. It would be even weirder if he could be punished for “trafficking in firearms” because he exercised his right to buy a gun.
Depending on how the courts resolve these issues, Ledvina might have a shot at clearing his record. After he gets out of prison, he will still have to complete three years of supervised release, and he will still be saddled with a felony conviction, which among other things means he is not allowed to exercise the Second Amendment rights that the Supreme Court upheld in Hemani.
In January, Ledvina received certification as a paralegal, and he hopes to find a job at a law firm after his release, although that might be difficult because of his criminal record. “The U.S. Probation Office has approved me to move home with my parents,” he writes. “I will then have to rebuild my life from scratch with the baggage of being a felon creating barriers for me.”
Ledvina says he is “griev[ing] lost time and things forever left in my past.” While he was in prison, his maternal grandfather died. “It really hit me hard,” Ledvina says. “I spent a lot of time with him growing up, and he’s a major reason I’m into guns. He was a [federally licensed gun dealer] and would always be test-firing his inventory when I’d visit. He taught me how to shoot a rifle when I was a little kid. I was fantasizing about surprising him by showing up at his house first thing [after] I got out of prison. This will never happen now.”
Ledvina enclosed pictures of his dog, whom he describes as “the closest thing I have to a child,” with his letter. “Luckily, she is still around but getting old and frail,” he writes. “This is really depressing because she spent her whole life attached to my hip before my arrest. Now she’s spent a quarter of her life without me, and as far as she knows I’m dead. My mom says she used to just stare at my car as though she thought I was about to exit it.”
The post Supreme Court Ruling Offers Hope to an Iowa Marijuana User Who Got 4 Years for Owning Guns appeared first on Reason.com.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/qp6Zng9
via IFTTT