Third Circuit splits on gun rights for people with prior convictions

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued contrasting decisions on Tuesday in two Pennsylvania cases that will bind federal courts across the Virgin Islands when they address firearm possession by people with criminal histories.

In Williams v. Attorney General, the court struck down a federal ban as it applied to Edward A. Williams, a man convicted in 2005 of operating a vehicle while intoxicated at twice the legal limit. Circuit Judge Paul Matey found that authorities could not justify permanently removing his gun rights based on a non-violent drunk-driving offense.

Williams had been arrested in 2004 following an earlier DUI in 2000. His 2005 conviction for driving with a blood-alcohol concentration of at least 0.16 percent qualified as a repeat offense, triggering a maximum five-year sentence. After his lawyer told him in 2015 that the conviction barred firearm ownership, Williams surrendered his guns. He later sued to overturn the prohibition and won at the district level, leading the government to appeal.

The appellate panel concluded that his offense involved no threat or violence and that historical laws addressing habitual intoxication did not support a permanent firearm ban. Those earlier restrictions typically involved temporary confinement, treatment or supervision rather than lasting loss of gun rights after release. The court also noted Williams showed no signs of addiction, violent behavior or dangerous firearm use, and it rejected the government's request for additional inquiry into his current risk level.

The second case, United States v. Bost, reached the opposite outcome. James Bost was convicted in 2002 following a carjacking in which he threatened to kill the driver unless she handed over money. He pleaded guilty to terroristic threats, criminal conspiracy, false imprisonment and simple assault, receiving four years of probation.

Years later, federal marshals discovered Bost near a stolen.38-caliber pistol while he was wanted for failing to appear in court on another matter. He faced federal charges for possessing a firearm despite his convictions and for possessing the stolen weapon. After losing his constitutional challenges at trial, he entered a guilty plea while preserving his right to appeal.

Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas upheld the conviction, finding that Bost's threats conviction alone was enough to proceed with prosecution. The judge wrote that "those who pose a risk of physical violence from misusing guns can be disarmed before that risk becomes a reality." The court also upheld his stolen-firearm conviction.

Both cases were heard en banc, meaning the full appeals court rather than a three-judge panel reviewed them. The Third Circuit includes the District Court of the Virgin Islands, making these rulings binding precedent for federal prosecutions in the territory. The decisions generated competing opinions from judges, with some arguing the federal ban could apply to all felons and others questioning whether permanent disarmament should follow sentence completion.