Challenging your illegal possession of a firearm or gun case because your prior was only a non-violent drug case: A Minnesota criminal defense attorney explains

In Minnesota, convictions for felony “Crimes of violence” as defined in Minnesota statute 624.712 result in lifetime ban of firearms. Perplexingly, Minnesota has defined felony controlled substance convictions as being crimes of violence regardless of whether there is any allegation of violence or threat of violence being a part of a case. Most other offenses on the crime of violence list are related to violence. i.e. murder, assault, aggravated robbery. But then every felony controlled substance conviction is also added. It makes little sense.

The 2013 challenge to the Minnesota firearm prohibition

In 2013, a case went up to the Minnesota Supreme Court where the defendant was prohibited from possessing a firearm because of a 5th degree controlled substance conviction. State v. Craig, 826 N.W.2d 789 (Minn. 2013). The defendant was challenging that his 2nd amendment rights were violated. But the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the conviction. Usually when the Minnesota Supreme Court decides something, that settles the issue and there is nothing more to argue. But the way 2nd amendment was to be analyzed was about to go through big changes.

The Supreme Court of the United States alters the analysis

In 2022, The Supreme Court of the United States issues the landmark Bruen case. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). Bruen established a new two-step process for 2nd amendment analysis: (1) we ask whether the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct; (2) we ask whether the challenged regulation is consistent with the principles that underpin our regulatory tradition. This new process means that much of the caselaw that relied on the old analysis is open to being re-interpreted under the new Bruen analysis.

Courts interpretation of the 2nd amendment after Bruen

There has been much litigation on the 2nd amendment since the Bruen case. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeal has already held that Minnesota age restriction laws with regard to firearms is unconstitutional. Worth v. Jacobson, No. 23-2248 (8th Cir. 2024). As of the time this blog is being posted, there has not yet been a challenge at the Court of Appeals to Minnesota for whether prohibiting firearm use for a non-violent drug offense would be permissible under the 2nd amendment under the Bruen analysis. But the time is ripe to challenge the restriction as not being within the 2nd amendment. There have been some federal circuits that have already held that past drug use is not a constitutionally permissible reason to ban a person from firearms for the rest of their life. United States v. Connelly, 23-50312 (5th Cir. Aug 28, 2024).

Conclusion

It remains to be seen whether Minnesota will follow suit. But if you are charged with an illegal possession of a firearm case because of a past drug conviction, contact an attorney who is knowledgeable about gun laws and how to challenge them. Contact Subzero Criminal Defense today. 651-248-5142.