Brief: No Lifetime Gun Ban for Nonviolent Felons!

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

A decade-old marijuana cultivation conviction now sits at the center of another major Second Amendment fight.

The Second Amendment Foundation, National Rifle Association and Firearms Policy Coalition filed a joint amicus brief Thursday in Johnson v. United States. The groups want the Supreme Court to hear a challenge to the federal lifetime firearm ban imposed on people with felony convictions.

Key Takeaways

• Joseph Johnson’s only predicate felony involved marijuana cultivation.
• The nonviolent conviction resulted in probation, not prison.
• SAF, NRA and FPC argue that history supports disarming dangerous people, not every person convicted of a felony.
• The Supreme Court has scheduled the petition for its October 9 conference.

Marijuana Conviction Leads to Permanent Gun Ban

Joseph Frederick Johnson was convicted in Colorado in 2015 for cultivating marijuana. According to his Supreme Court petition, the offense involved growing marijuana plants.

Johnson received probation, which ended early. He has never been convicted of a violent offense.

However, that conviction permanently placed him under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The federal statute prohibits firearm or ammunition possession by anyone convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year in prison.

Federal prosecutors indicted Johnson in December 2024 on two felon-in-possession counts. Police discovered firearms and ammunition during two separate encounters, including a routine traffic stop and a welfare check.

Johnson moved to dismiss the indictment. He argued that applying the lifetime ban to him violated the Second Amendment because his only felony was nonviolent.

The district court rejected that argument. Johnson later pleaded guilty while preserving his right to appeal. He received a sentence of 366 days in federal prison.

Tenth Circuit Says the Felony Label Ends the Debate

The Tenth Circuit affirmed Johnson’s conviction in April.

The appeals court relied on its earlier decision in Vincent v. Bondi. That ruling held that § 922(g)(1) remains constitutional for everyone convicted of a felony, including people with nonviolent convictions.

In other words, the Tenth Circuit does not allow someone like Johnson to bring an individualized Second Amendment challenge. The nature of the original offense does not change the result.

Johnson’s Supreme Court petition argues that federal appeals courts are now divided 6-3 over that question. Three circuits allow at least some nonviolent offenders to challenge the ban as applied to their individual circumstances. Six circuits categorically reject those challenges.

Johnson is not asking the Supreme Court to immediately invalidate every felon firearm prohibition. His petition asks a narrower question: Can someone whose only felony was nonviolent receive an individualized constitutional review?

Groups Point to “Dangerousness,” Not Felony Status

The SAF, NRA and FPC brief argues that America’s historical tradition supports disarming dangerous people.

That includes violent individuals and people who presented a demonstrated threat to the government or public. However, the groups say the historical record contains no comparable tradition of permanently disarming every peaceful person convicted of a nonviolent crime.

Their brief also argues that people convicted of crimes routinely returned to society during the Founding era. Once released, able-bodied men could still be required to possess arms and serve in the militia.

Some early laws even protected firearms from government seizure during debt collection and other civil proceedings.

“There is no tradition of disarming peaceable citizens,” the brief states.

The groups argue that courts have misread the Supreme Court’s statement in District of Columbia v. Heller describing felony firearm prohibitions as “presumptively lawful.” According to the brief, “presumptively” does not mean every application of the law is automatically constitutional.

Instead, every restriction must still survive the historical analysis required by New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The government must identify a relevant American tradition supporting the restriction.

The brief contends that the historical basis for felony disarmament involved dangerousness, not the modern felony label.

What Happens Next?

Johnson filed his Supreme Court petition on August 27. The Department of Justice waived its right to respond on September 18.

The Court distributed the case for consideration during its October 9 conference. SAF, NRA and FPC submitted their joint brief on October 1. The Cato Institute also filed a separate brief supporting Johnson.

The justices could deny the petition, request a government response, hold the case for another pending matter or agree to hear it.

For now, the central question remains unresolved: Should a single nonviolent marijuana conviction permanently erase someone’s Second Amendment rights without any finding that the person is dangerous?

SAF, NRA and FPC say American history answers that question with a clear no.

*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! ***

https://gunsamerica.com/listings/search