Kanter v. Barr

919 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2019)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341. Due to his felony conviction, he is prohibited from possessing a firearm under both federal and Wisconsin law. Section 922(g)(1) prohibits firearm possession by persons convicted of 'a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.' The statute excludes anyone convicted of 'any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices.' 'Any conviction which has been expunged, or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored' is not a conviction for purposes of the statute. The statute permits individuals to apply to the Attorney General for restoration of their firearms rights. The Attorney General may remove the prohibition on a case-by-case basis if an applicant sufficiently establishes 'that the circumstances regarding the disability, and the applicant's record and reputation, are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest.' Since 1992, 'Congress has repeatedly barred the Attorney General from using appropriated funds 'to investigate or act upon [relief] applications,'' rendering the provision 'inoperative.' The Committee determined that 'the $3.75 million and the 40 man-years annually spent investigating and acting upon these applications for relief would be better utilized by ATF in fighting violent crime.' Wisconsin adopted its own felon dispossession law. See Wis. Stat. § 941.29(1m). Section 941.29(1m) prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm if he has 'been convicted of a felony in' Wisconsin or 'a crime elsewhere that would be a felony' in Wisconsin. P lives in Wisconsin and was the owner, operator, and CEO of Rikco International, LLC. Rikco International manufactured therapeutic shoes and inserts for individuals with diabetes and severe foot disease. The company marketed the shoes and inserts to podiatrists, who in turn sold them to individual consumers. Most of the shoes and inserts were billed to and paid for by, Medicare. Medicare only paid for inserts that met certain thickness and hardness standards. Medicare rejected P's inserts because they were too thin. P submitted revised samples, which Medicare-approved. P continued to sell the noncompliant inserts while representing that they were Medicare-approved. P pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 based on a shipment of the noncompliant inserts to a podiatrist in Florida. P was sentenced to one year and one day in prison and two years of supervised release. P has not been charged with any additional criminal activity. Because of his felony conviction, he is permanently prohibited from owning a firearm under federal and Wisconsin law. P sued arguing that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and Wis. Stat. § 941.29(1m) are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment as applied to him. P argued that his status as a nonviolent offender with no other criminal record meant that both statutes were unconstitutional as applied to him. The district court held the dispossession laws are substantially related to the government's important interest in preventing gun violence. The court reasoned that Congress and the Wisconsin legislature are entitled to categorically disqualify all felons-even nonviolent felons -because both have found that such individuals are more likely to abuse firearms. The court also noted that this 'bright-line categorical approach ... allows for uniform application and ease of administration.' P appealed.