State Supreme Court upholds gun ban for nonviolent felony
In a case that sought to put the first dent in Wisconsin’s ban on felons possessing guns, the Wisconsin Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a constitutional challenge from a man who became a felon for not paying child support.
The ruling upheld the conviction of Leevan Roundtree, who had argued the law is unconstitutional in his case because his underlying felony conviction was for a nonviolent offense more than 10 years before he was found with a gun, convicted and sent to prison.
But the majority in the 5-2 decision said the law banning all felons from possessing guns forever is substantially related to the important government objectives of public safety and reducing gun violence.
Roundtree, 52, of Milwaukee, argued the law should be subject to what is called strict scrutiny — that is, is it “narrowly tailored to advance a compelling government interest.”
The majority noted that even recent U.S. Supreme Court cases seen as strengthening Second Amendment rights say that some limitations — including bans on felons having guns — are presumptively lawful.
“The legislature did not in Wis. Stat. § 941.29(2) create a hierarchy of felonies, and neither will this court. “
The majority cites research that found nonviolent offenders are more likely to commit new crimes, and that, in Wisconsin, nearly a quarter of such recidivists in one study committed a violent crime.
Justices Rebecca Bradley and Brian Hagedorn each wrote lengthy dissents.
“Under the majority’s vision of what is good for society, ‘even if a felon has not exhibited signs of physical violence, it is reasonable for the State to want to keep firearms out of the hands of those who have shown a willingness to ... break the law,’” Bradley wrote.
“It may be ‘reasonable’ to the majority but it surely isn’t constitutional.”
“Permitting restraints on the right to
“The legislature did not in Wis. Stat. § 941.29(2) create a hierarchy of felonies, and neither will this court. “Majority opinion keep and bear arms that were never contemplated by the Framers lends an illimitable quality to the legislative power to regulate a fundamental right, thereby deflating the primacy of the Constitution and imperiling the liberty of the people,” Bradley wrote.
Bradley notes that people convicted of violent misdemeanors, like battery, don’t face the same prohibition against guns as those convicted of nonviolent felonies.
Hagedorn agreed with the majority’s application of less-than strict scrutiny of the felon dispossession law but concluded the state fails to meet even that burden, showing, at best, “modest correlation” between banning the likes of Roundtree from having guns and preserving public safety.
His opinion includes a detailed history of the right to arms, going back to English law, and the relatively recent state and federal statutes to restrict firearms possession by those convicted of an expanding array of felonies.
“To be sure, felon-dispossession laws have been on the books for some time. But these laws are of 20th century vintage; they do not date back to the 18th or 19th centuries — the relevant time periods when the Second Amendment was ensconced as an individual constitutional right,” Hagedorn wrote.
In 2003, Roundtree was convicted of multiple counts of failing to pay child support for more than 120 days.
In 2015, while executing a search warrant at Roundtree’s home, police found a handgun and ammunition under his mattress. He said he had purchased the gun from someone on the street and did not know it had been stolen from Texas.
He pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon and was sentenced to 18 months in prison plus 18 months of extended supervision, and appealed.