United States v. Richard L. Rowold
1 F.3d 1245, 1993 WL 299352, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 26984 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The federal statute prohibiting convicted felons from possessing firearms, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), does not violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
Facts:
- Richard L. Rowold was a previously convicted felon.
- Rowold kept multiple firearms in his home.
- The firearms in Rowold's possession were manufactured outside of Indiana, the state where he possessed them.
- Rowold claimed he was unaware that, as a convicted felon, he was prohibited by law from possessing firearms.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States charged Richard L. Rowold in U.S. District Court with being a felon in possession of firearms.
- A jury convicted Rowold on the charge.
- The district court judge sentenced Rowold to fifteen months in prison.
- Rowold, as the defendant-appellant, appealed his conviction and sentence to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- On appeal, Rowold's appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw, asserting that the appeal was frivolous under Anders v. California.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which prohibits convicted felons from possessing firearms, abridge the Second Amendment right to bear arms?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. The federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), does not abridge a felon's Second Amendment right to bear arms. The court reaffirms its prior holding on this issue, citing United States v. Three Winchester 30-30 Caliber Lever Action Carbines. The court also summarily rejected several other potential grounds for appeal as frivolous. It held that Rowold's admission to keeping the firearms in his home was sufficient to prove knowing possession. Furthermore, ignorance of the law is not a defense to a § 922(g) violation. Finally, the court found that Rowold was not entitled to a sentence reduction for acceptance of responsibility because he put the government to its burden of proof at trial before admitting guilt.
Analysis:
This case is an example of the pre-Heller judicial consensus that the Second Amendment does not protect a felon's right to possess a firearm. The court's summary dismissal of the constitutional claim as frivolous demonstrates that, at the time, such prohibitions were considered presumptively lawful and not subject to serious legal challenge. The decision reinforces the principle that certain classes of people may be constitutionally disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights. It also affirms that a defendant's ignorance of their prohibited status under federal firearm law does not constitute a valid legal defense.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Richard L. Rowold