A couple of years ago, in a case called Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), the US Supreme Court held that, in prosecuting federal felon-in-possession cases, the prosecution must prove that the criminal defendant knew that he or she possessed a firearm AND also that the defendant knew that they were a person – like a felon – who was a barred from possessing a firearm under federal law. This was based on the reading of the relevant statute. In particular, the Gun Control Act (“GCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), provides that “[i]t shall be unlawful” for certain individuals – like a felon – to possess firearms. Further, the punishment provision of the GCA provides that anyone who “knowingly violates” Section 922(g) shall be fined or imprisoned for up to 10 years. 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2). Because of the word “knowingly,” the Supreme Court held that “criminal intent” was required for a conviction. This, in turn, meant that the government must provide, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant knew he or she had a firearm and was prohibited from having a firearm.
This was very good news for persons whose firearm rights were restricted under the GCA. The Rehaif case made it just a bit more difficult for prosecutors to obtain a conviction.
However, recently, the Supreme Court “walked back” the protections provided in Rehaif (at least for those convicted prior to Rehaif being decided). This is another reason to pursue restoration of your firearm rights if a conviction or some other event in your past has restricted your firearm rights.
The case in question is Greer v. United States, Nos. 19-8709, 20-444 (US Supreme Court, June 14, 2021). Greer was a companion case involving two defendants, both charged as felons-in-possession in violation of Section 922(g). Both were either convicted or entered a plea bargain before the Rehaif opinion was handed down. After the Rehaif opinion was issued, the two defendants sought relief from their sentencing because of the “new law” contained in the Rehaif decision. In one of the cases, the jury had convicted the accused without being instructed that it must find that he knew he was a felon. In the other, before he agreed to his plea deal, the accused was not informed by the judge that, if he went to trial, a jury would have to find that he knew he was a felon.
In theory, the new law of Rahaif should have been grounds for reversing their conviction/plea bargain and giving each defendant a new trial.
But, in Greer, the Supreme disagreed. For very technical and nuanced legal reasons, the court said that neither defendant was entitled to a new trial. Essentially, the record did not show that the outcomes of their proceedings would have been different.
The Rehaif ruling still applies to felon-in-possession charges going forward, but, in Greer, the Supreme Court refused to protect the rights of previously sentenced felons-in-possession. Greer is a reminder that it is time to get your firearm rights restored.
