Strict Scrutiny Upholds Felon Firearm Prohibition in STATE v. DRAUGHTER

Strict Scrutiny Upholds Felon Firearm Prohibition in STATE of Louisiana v. Glen P. Draugther

Introduction

In the landmark case STATE of Louisiana v. Glen P. Draugther, the Supreme Court of Louisiana reaffirmed the constitutionality of prohibiting certain felons from possessing firearms. This case revolves around Draugther, a probationer with a prior felony conviction for attempted simple burglary, who was charged under La. R.S. 14:95.1 for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The crux of the dispute lies in whether the criminal statute violates the recently amended Article I, Section 11 of the Louisiana Constitution, which declares the right to keep and bear arms as fundamental and subject to strict scrutiny.

Summary of the Judgment

The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision that had declared La. R.S. 14:95.1 unconstitutional. The appellant, STATE of Louisiana, successfully argued that the prohibition on firearm possession by felons serves a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, thereby satisfying the strict scrutiny standard. Consequently, the court upheld the statute, ruling that it does not infringe upon Draugther's constitutional rights under the amended Article I, Section 11.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court extensively referenced prior cases to ground its decision:

  • STATE v. AMOS (1977): Affirmed the legislature's authority to restrict firearm possession by certain felons, emphasizing public safety concerns.
  • STATE v. WIGGINS (1983): Reinforced that La. R.S. 14:95.1 is a reasonable exercise of police power, applicable even to those with restored citizenship rights.
  • HUDSON v. PALMER (1984): Highlighted that fundamental rights can be curtailed in the prison context to maintain institutional order and safety.
  • District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010): Federal Supreme Court cases that recognized an individual’s right to bear arms but also allowed for certain restrictions.
  • GRIFFITH v. KENTUCKY (1987): Established that new legal rules apply retroactively to pending cases.

These precedents collectively supported the court’s stance that restricting firearm possession by felons serves a compelling governmental interest and is constitutionally permissible.

Impact

This judgment has profound implications for future cases involving firearm regulations and felon disenfranchisement:

  • Reaffirmation of Felon Disenfranchisement: The ruling solidifies the legality of restricting firearm rights for individuals with serious criminal backgrounds.
  • Strict Scrutiny Enforcement: It underscores the necessity for the state to use the highest level of judicial review when imposing restrictions on fundamental rights.
  • Guidance for Legislation: Legislators are guided to craft firearm laws that are narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests.
  • Precedent for Other States: States with similar laws may look to this case as a benchmark for upholding their own firearm restrictions.

Overall, the decision reinforces the balance between individual rights and public safety, particularly in the context of criminal justice.

Complex Concepts Simplified

To facilitate better understanding, here are explanations of some intricate legal concepts used in the judgment:

  • Strict Scrutiny: The highest standard of judicial review used by courts to evaluate the constitutionality of governmental restrictions on fundamental rights. The government must prove that the law serves a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
  • De Novo Review: A standard of appellate review in which the court considers the matter anew, giving no deference to the lower court's conclusions or findings.
  • Facial vs. As-Applied Challenge: A facial challenge argues that a law is unconstitutional in all its applications, while an as-applied challenge contends that the law is unconstitutional in the specific context of a particular case.
  • Prospective vs. Retroactive Effect: Prospective effect means the law applies to future cases after its enactment, whereas retroactive effect allows the law to affect past or ongoing cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Louisiana's decision in STATE of Louisiana v. Glen P. Draugther upholds the constitutionality of La. R.S. 14:95.1, affirming the state's authority to restrict firearm possession by felons. By applying strict scrutiny, the court balanced individual rights with compelling public safety interests, ensuring that such prohibitions are justified and precisely targeted. This ruling not only reinforces existing legal standards but also provides clear guidance for future legislative and judicial actions concerning firearm regulations and felon disenfranchisement.

Case Details

Year: 2013
Court: Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Judge(s)

Marcus R. Clark

Attorney(S)

Department of Justice, State of Louisiana, James D. Caldwell, Attorney General, Colin Andrew Clark, Assistant Attorney General, District Attorney's Office, Orleans, Parish, Leon A. Cannizzaro, Jr., District Attorney, Donna R. Andrieu, Assistant District Attorney, for Appellant. Public Defender's Office, Orleans Parish, Jill K. Pasquarella, Colin Reingold, for Appellee.

Comments