Gun Owners Who Are Disqualified Under State Law Can Now Be Charged With 'Trafficking in Firearms'
That new crime, which is punishable by up to 15 years in federal prison, includes receipt of firearms by "prohibited persons."

In my column this week, I note that the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which was hailed as a victory for "common sense" gun control when it was approved last month, increased the penalties for illegal possession of firearms. The law raised the maximum sentence for people with felony records from 10 to 15 years and created a new "trafficking in firearms" offense, also punishable by up to 15 years in prison, that is defined broadly enough to include receipt of a firearm by someone who is legally disqualified from owning one. Those provisions affect millions of "prohibited persons" with no history of violence, including cannabis consumers, former psychiatric patients, and people convicted of drug crimes or other nonviolent felonies.
It gets worse. Patricia Richman, national sentencing resource counsel at Federal Public & Community Defenders, notes that the "trafficking in firearms" provision applies to anyone who obtains a gun when he "knows or has reasonable cause to believe that such receipt would constitute a felony." It therefore covers prohibited persons as defined by state as well as federal law—a significant expansion, since state criteria for gun ownership are often stricter than federal criteria. That provision, Richman notes in an email, "pull[s] in all state felony prohibitions on firearm possession."
Maryland, for example, prohibits handgun possession by people convicted of violent misdemeanors, such as simple assault, that are not disqualifying under federal law. Violating that rule is a felony that carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison. That means someone with a disqualifying misdemeanor record who obtains a handgun in Maryland could also be guilty of "trafficking in firearms" under the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, even if he was not a prohibited person under federal law. So in addition to Maryland's five-year mandatory minimum, he could face up to 15 years in federal prison.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that such serial prosecutions do not amount to double jeopardy under the Fifth Amendment, even when they involve state and federal crimes with the same elements. In the 2019 case Gamble v. United States, the Court rejected an appeal by a man with a felony record who had been convicted of illegal gun possession twice, once under state law and once under federal law.
The "trafficking in firearms" provision includes a knowledge requirement that could be helpful for some defendants. Last year, for example, the Maryland Court of Appeals considered the case of Mashour Howling, who was arrested in 2019 because he had a pistol and had been convicted of simple assault in Pennsylvania 17 years before. Howling argued that he should not have been convicted of illegal handgun possession because he did not realize he was a prohibited person. That argument, he noted, was consistent with the reasoning of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2019 decision in Rehaif v. United States, which held that prohibited persons can be convicted of illegal gun possession under federal law only if they recognized that they were not allowed to have firearms.
The Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that Maryland law imposes no such requirement. The court said it was enough that Howling knowingly possessed a handgun, even if he did not know that his 17-year-old Pennsylvania conviction made that illegal in Maryland. But in federal court, a defendant like Howling who was charged with "trafficking in firearms" could argue that he was not aware of his prohibited status.
The interaction between state law and the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act nevertheless could create traps for gun owners who do not realize how broadly and counterintuitively "trafficking in firearms" is defined. California, to take another example, has a long list of disqualifications that goes beyond federal law, including some misdemeanors that do not involve domestic violence. Prosecutors have discretion to charge gun owners who are disqualified because of misdemeanors with felonies.
Restrictions on gun ownership vary widely from state to state and often go further than federal law. In any state where violating those restrictions is a felony, a prohibited person who obtains a gun can now face prosecution for "trafficking in firearms," even though he never actually trafficked in firearms.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
But we no longer have to deal with mean tweets.
As the British say, it's all swings and roundabouts.
I without a doubt have made $18k inside a calendar month thru operating clean jobs from a laptop. As I had misplaced my ultimate business, I changed into so disenchanted and thank God I searched this easy task (neh-08) accomplishing this I'm equipped to reap thousand of bucks simply from my home. All of you could really be part of this pleasant task and will gather extra cash on-line
travelling this site.
>>>>>>>>>> http://getjobs49.tk
People seem to think that giving individual states more power is a good thing.
Does that include violating your federal constitutional rights?
Does it include you and your friends attempting Holocaust 2.0?
You’re a fucking troll. That’s your schtick.
You have never refuted anything that I’ve ever said.
Intellectually, you’re pathetic.
Nadler just admitted today their goal is to ban common use weapons, despite Supreme Court rulings.
Bishop: "Is there any Democrat that would dispute that this bill would ban weapons that are in common use?"
Nadler: "That's the point of the bill."
Bishop: "So it is the point of the bill to ban guns that are in common use?"
Nadler: "The problem is they are in common use."
Not surprising. They view SCOTUS as illegitimate.
The gun-grabber response to a good guy with a gun is that the bad guy shouldn't have had a gun in the first place. It ignores this pesky little thing called reality.
A surly redneck in Kileen TX was chapped that city bureaucrats red-tagged his yard fence. So he went to the Lubys a block from City Hall where, bureaucrats stuffed themselves, and shot a roomful of people. Wikipedia ignores the gripe with officious regulators and also the fact that expert shooter Susanna Hupp left her pistol in the car per the anti-gun sign on the door. She was therefore helpless to prevent the murder of her parents and two dozen others. Bill of Rights opponents claim 2A rights "would have" killed everyone there in an OK corral melée.
Fuck off Hank.
Right now the argument is that the "good guy" is a "bad guy" because he violated the "No Guns" policy of the Mall. Of course they don't mention that the real "bad guy" also violated that policy.
So they are undermining checks and balances, constitutional order and the rule of law. Nader is unfit for his office.
Fascists will always do fascism.
He certainly doesn't fit his chair of office.
When they say the quiet part out loud. We've been saying this for decades and they called us conspiracy nuts.
Ideally Nadler should die in prison.
In a similar move. Montgomery County Maryland, a deep blue county, is considering a bill that would ban concealed carry in sensitive areas defining sensitive areas as within 100ft of were people may gather even if it is not public property. So, if you withing 100ft of a sidewalk....
The reason this is important, it takes direct aim at 100% legal gun owners who have jumped through the hoops and filled out all the forms, taken all the classes and are 100% legal to carry.
Its not about criminals with guns, its irrational fear of guns themselves.
And when it's recognized that this law is disproportionately impacting POC's, they'll scream racism, not shitty law-ism.
Just wait a couple years.
Exactly my thoughts. And they will blame the disproportionality on white people and the republication party...as per usual.
Blaming Republicans is getting them less and less traction it seems from the polls. They're starting to wake up to the fact that people are waking up to their empty rhetoric.
It took them like 4 decades to figure out the war on drugs was racist. It will be far more than a couple years.
The war on drugs has been entirely and massively bipartisan from the beginning.
As much noise as the Democrats make about ending the war on drugs, they have never (and likely will never) put forward a bill to do so in a time when they had majorities in both the House and the Senate and a Democrat in the White House.
In other words they have and will never attempt to end the war on drugs when it is likely to pass.
It's not racism when the inequality is caused by leftist policies.
California has made "equity" the official primary consideration for implementation/enforcement of all forms of governance, except for school closures, shutting down businesses, or trapping poor people in systems of "public assistance" which create the equivalent of 100%+ marginal tax rates (making an extra $1000 costs them $1200 in State subsidies/benefits), or creating the very housing shortages which they pretend are the primary cause of homelessness while protesting even the suggestion that mental health/addiction treatment professionals be allowed to volunteer to participate in policy advisory comittees tasked with trying the get the "unhoused" population of L.A. County back down to a 5-digit number.
There's never going to be any reckoning or accountability for any of the officials who kept the public schools closed for almost 2 full years and did incalculable damage to a generation of (largely poor/minority) kids in the process while their own kids continued to attend private schools which safely reopened after 2-3 months and generally provide a superior education to what most of their public counterparts (except for a few in the highly affluent areas) offer. Hard to hold any pols accountable for bowing to the will of the public employee unions which more or less control the insider power structure of the ruling party which has a supermajority at the state level and near-unianimous control of the larger city/county governments.
“….. while protesting even the suggestion that mental health/addiction treatment professionals be allowed to volunteer….”
Haha. It’s worse than that. Here in the emerald city the council requested $200+ million next year to waste on the homeless. They included a line item of $5+ million to “train and hire people with ‘lived experience’ being homeless.
Why the fuck would it cost an extra 5 mil to hire homeless people? It’s just a big fuck you to the taxpayers and they’re proud of it.
It sure won't be used to go after Hunter Biden, who is on video, violating gun laws (brandishing while under the influence, illegally purchasing firearms while a regular drug user).
Can you imagine doing 15 years for "trafficking free speech"?
Every gun law is illegitimate.
Julian Assange doesn't have to imagine that....
By your logic, do you support violent felons (such as, murders, gang members, child predators, etc) be legally allowed to purchase a gun?
Convicts should have all rights restored after they complete their sentences. Extra-judicial persecution of ex-convicts of any kind should end.
I disagree with all rights being restored. All rights come with responsibilities, and plenty of people serve a short time for very violent actions. Plea deals, etc. The revolving door of the same criminals getting caught, jailed, then released is absurd. So, these people that have proven they are neither responsible nor trustworthy should be able to legally purchase and own a firearm. Its BS and is similar to the garbage DA's that are decriminalizing crime.
Put it this way, would you want a convicted pedo hanging around your kids? Would you trust that person to be rehabilitated? I doubt it. But you are not here arguing for their freedom of assembly or association. Law abiding citizens should not have to bear the additional risk because people have clearly proven themselves not responsible. I agree that losing gun rights due to stupid technicalities, or laws being applied overly broad is an issue and should be rectified. But allowing serious felons that legal capacity after they have so proven themselves not trustworthy is very obtuse.
Law abiding citizens should not have to bear the additional risk because people have clearly proven themselves not responsible.
Yes, they should. The proper method for eliminating that risk is to put people in prison. The amount of time they spend there is set by statute and imposed by judges. That is the amount of risk reduction to which citizens are entitled. Nothing more. If that's not enough for you, then lobby for longer sentences.
If I've been convicted of election fraud, am I allowed to write an article contesting the legitimacy of an election?
"Trafficking" is a Newspeak way of signalling: "selling what they want to people willing and able to pay for it baaad!" To openly come out and admit you want a Political State that uses violence to make a crime of production and trade would be honesty unbecoming a looter, hence the dual-function subterfuge. Why dual? It also signals: "violent coercion goood, voluntary choice baaad." Army of God bigots have fine-tuned this self-deception into literal reality control.
Yeah, you’re an anti religion bigot. We’re all very well aware of what an intolerant authoritarian bigot you are.
Is this something they'll actively enforce, or just another add-on to coerce someone into taking a plea?
Yes.
So what if they called it 'Ishmael' instead of trafficking? If you don't have a right to possess a gun - it's a felony up to 15 years. I think the title of the crime is stupid but titles don't define the law. Ultimately the S. Ct may have to rule if you can prohibit jay walkers from getting a gun but they will never over turn a State's right to prohibit convicted felons from having them any more than they will return to felons the right to vote if their non violent crime occurred 25 years ago.
"If you don't have a right to possess a gun . . . "
If I may suggest, perhaps a review of the US Constitution is in order.
The real question, will Hunter Biden be charged with firearm trafficking?
No.
Nor anything else. He knows too much. He might disappear or commit "suicide", but he won't be prosecuted.
He could be accused of trafficking crack and prostitutes.
His laptop is filled with child porn.
"Maryland, for example, prohibits handgun possession by people convicted of violent misdemeanors, such as simple assault..."
Given the way that municipalities like the Maryland suburbs of D.C., and D.C. itself, let criminals plead down from violent felonies to misdemeanors, I got no problem with that. Based on the news around the DMV, most people charged with firearms murders had previous firearms or assault charges pled down.
Since such a huge portion of firearms murders are related to gang activity, I'd be amazed if most of those killers were using guns that had been obtained through legal channels (unless you count a straw-purchased weapon as having come through "legal channels") anyway.
90% of the time "previous firearms charges" means they'd been charged with illegal possession prior to obtaining whatever gun they used to commit that murder.
Exactly. The problem though, and from which the author is arguing from, is the perspective of the person who did something minor, especially years ago, being charged under this same law. Mandatory minimums are a huge issue as they severally punish all violators regardless of scope or severity of their crime. I think 15 years is appropriate for felons in possession of an illegal firearm. But all we need is the stiff mandatory mins from the war on drugs as a reminder to negative consequences of one size fits all approaches.
"15 years is appropriate for felons in possession of an illegal firearm."
What is appropriate for felons is that they serve their sentence and then have all rights restored.
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and begin slitting throats."
H.L. Mencken.
Does the prohibition of "trafficking" include the person selling the gun to the prohibited person? Including those who did not know the person was prohibited?