In Fortson v. Los Angeles City Attorney's Office, published April 7, 2017, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 lawsuit based on alleged violation of the Second Amendment. The plaintiff, a security guard, was convicted of misdemeanor domestic abuse. Under the California Penal Code, that made it a misdemeanor for him to own, buy, or have in his custody a firearm for 10 years. His sentence was modified to permit him to use and keep a weapon while on the job as a security guard, but to forbid him from having weapons in his possession when not at work. He completed the affirmative obligations of his sentence, his conviction was vacated, and his case was dismissed. Plaintiff purchased two handguns. Under Bureau of Firearm policies, BOF agents were to come to plaintiff's home, request permission to enter and seize the weapons, and return with a warrant if he refused. Instead, when they came to his home and he refused to turn over the weapons, they restrained him and seized the weapons. Plaintiff was charged with violating the 10-year ban on weapons. The charges were later dropped. Plaintiff brought an as-applied challenge against the 10-year ban, and false imprisonment and malicious prosecution claims.
The 9th Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the 10-year ban. It had previously upheld a federal statute imposing a lifetime ban on firearm ownership for those convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors. The 10-year ban is less restrictive, and shares the same goal of preventing domestic gun violence. It does not violate the Second Amendment, which protects the rights of law-abiding responsible citizens to use weapons in defense of hearth and home. The ban was not coterminus with plaintiff's probation, and he was mistaken in thinking it was. The false imprisonment and malicious prosecution claims failed because the agents had probable cause for plaintiff's arrest, even though the search for them may have been unlawful.
Comments