US Politics
US Supreme Court refuses to review gun rights for nonviolent felons
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it’s investigating the financials of Elon Musk’s pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, ‘The A Word’, which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.
Read more
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to expand gun rights further, rejecting a challenge to a federal law that prohibits individuals with serious criminal convictions, including nonviolent felons, from owning firearms.
The justices opted not to hear an appeal from Melynda Vincent, a Utah woman, against a lower court’s decision. That ruling affirmed that the gun restriction did not infringe upon her Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms” under the US Constitution. The prohibition on gun possession by nonviolent felons is enshrined in the Gun Control Act of 1968.
Vincent, a single mother residing in Utah, was barred from firearm ownership following her 2008 felony conviction for bank fraud, specifically cashing a fraudulent cheque worth approximately $500.
She appealed to the Supreme Court after lower courts consistently refused to reinstate her right to lawfully own a gun.
Donald Trump’s administration had previously urged the court to dismiss the challenge to this provision. Justice Department lawyers noted in court papers that the administration had already taken steps to grant US Attorney General Pam Bondi the authority to restore gun rights to nonviolent felons who meet specific eligibility criteria.
The justices have recently turned away numerous similar cases.
In a nation deeply divided over how to tackle persistent firearms violence, including frequent mass shootings, the Supreme Court has often adopted an expansive interpretation of Second Amendment protections. The court, which holds a 6-3 conservative majority, broadened gun rights in three significant rulings in 2008, 2010, and most recently in 2022.
The Supreme Court’s landmark 2022 precedent in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen was driven by the court’s six conservatives, with dissents from the three liberal justices. Challengers to the restriction on gun ownership by nonviolent felons have cited the Bruen decision’s holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense.
The Bruen decision invalidated New York State’s limits on carrying concealed handguns outside the home. In doing so, it established a new test for assessing firearms laws, stipulating that restrictions must be “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” rather than merely advancing an important government interest.
In 2024, the court ruled 8-1 that a federal law making it a crime for individuals under domestic violence restraining orders to possess guns satisfied the court’s stringent Bruen test. The court is currently considering two important Second Amendment cases during its present term. During arguments in January, the court’s conservative justices signalled scepticism towards a Hawaii law restricting handguns on private property open to the public without the owner’s permission. On Monday, the court heard arguments in a bid by Trump’s administration to defend a federal law barring users of illegal drugs from owning guns.
