In a recent ruling, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the conviction of Juan Alaniz, who was found guilty of possessing a firearm and ammunition despite being a convicted felon. The court rejected Alaniz’s arguments that the law under which he was convicted was unconstitutional.
The Legal Battle: Alaniz’s Arguments
Alaniz appealed his conviction, raising several constitutional challenges to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the law that prohibits convicted felons from possessing firearms. His arguments were threefold:
* He claimed the law exceeded Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause.
* He argued the law violated the Second Amendment on its face.
* He asserted the law violated the Second Amendment as applied to him.
The Court’s Decision: Precedent and Historical Context
The court swiftly dismissed Alaniz’s first two arguments. They cited prior rulings, specifically *United States v. Alcantar* and *United States v. Diaz*, which had already addressed and rejected similar challenges. Essentially, the court found these arguments were “foreclosed,” meaning they were already decided in previous cases and couldn’t be brought up again.
The court then turned its attention to Alaniz’s as-applied challenge, which required a different level of scrutiny. This is where the court had to determine if the law was constitutional as it applied specifically to Alaniz’s situation.
The court applied the framework set by *New York Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen*, which requires that any regulation restricting the Second Amendment right to bear arms must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. In other words, the government needed to show that the law was similar to regulations that were in place when the Second Amendment was originally written and ratified.
The court emphasized that the government needed to demonstrate that there was a historical tradition of severely punishing individuals convicted of crimes like those committed by Alaniz.
Alaniz’s Criminal History: The Key Factor
Alaniz had prior felony convictions for illegally possessing a controlled substance and for burglary. The court specifically noted that founding-era burglary laws support the constitutionality of disarming felony burglary convicts under § 922(g)(1).
Alaniz tried to argue that his burglary conviction shouldn’t be considered because his controlled substance conviction was the explicit reason for his § 922(g)(1) conviction. However, the court rejected this argument, citing a recent unpublished case, *United States v. Davis*, and opinions from other circuit courts, like *Pitsilides v. Barr* and *United States v. Williams*.
The court reasoned that considering a defendant’s entire criminal record makes sense, especially since the government doesn’t need to prove the specific predicate felony to secure a conviction under § 922(g)(1).
The Court’s Conclusion
Because Alaniz’s burglary conviction could be considered, and because of existing precedent, the court found that his as-applied challenge was also unsuccessful. The court therefore affirmed the original conviction.