A woman convicted of a nonviolent felony challenged the ban on her having a gun.
In Vincent v. Garland, Melynda Vincent argued that her 2008 conviction for writing a bad check for nearly $500 to a grocery store should not invalidate her Second Amendment rights. She avoided prison time as the judge sentenced her to probation.
Vincent progressed from being homeless and on drugs to now being a social worker helping others redirect their lives. She initially tried to regain her gun rights in 2020 only to see that suit tossed.
But after the Bruen ruling, Vincent chose to make another attempt.
Her attorneys argued that the lifetime ban on having firearms and ammunition is unconstitutional. The Tenth Circuit panel decided otherwise, declaring the court’s precedents upholding the prohibition were not invalidated by Bruen or other high court rulings.
In its decision, the court held that nothing in the Bruen or Heller outcomes “should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons.”
The judges added that felon dispossession statues are “presumptively lawful.”
They decided that the Supreme Court majority did not dispute the ruling in Heller establishing the personal right to bear arms. The court further noted that the high court approved the constitutionality of ordinances mandating criminal background checks before an individual may obtain a weapon.
These, the court said, are to confirm that the person seeking to purchase a firearm is a “law-abiding, responsible citizen.”
This implied, according to the Tenth Circuit, that it is constitutional to prohibit persons convicted of felonies from acquiring a firearm license.
