A judge in San Diego has denied a motion to dismiss gun charges against Boosie Badazz. Boosie was arrested on felony gun possession in June, spending a few days in jail before being granted bond. Per the San Diego Union-Tribune, Boosie was back in court this week to seek a dismissal of the charges. The dismissal, filed last month, argued that the charges were a violation of Boosie's 2nd Amendment rights as well as the precedent established by New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022). The Supreme Court ruled has set a percent that modern gun laws must have a historical analog. This has led to judges siding with individuals convicted of felonies who argue that it is unconstitutional for their felony conviction to bar them from gun ownership.
The ruling was one of the biggest changes to firearm law in several years and a massive blow against gun control advocates. However, it does of course come with checks and balances. The ruling is not universally applied, meaning that a defendant cannot pull a precedent wherever it may exist. Instead, defendants must be able to show percent and analogs from the circuit in which they are being tried. That is exactly the reason why Boosie has seen his motion denied.
Read More: Boosie says he draws strength from the people "shitting on him" after this arrest
Boosie To Face Trial For Gun Charges
“Nothing in Mr. Hatch’s motion persuades this Court that these holdings are incorrect or that the Court otherwise has the right to disregard binding Ninth Circuit precedent here,” District Judge Cathy Bencivengo wrote in her decision. This is not unusual for the 9th Circuit. Bencivengo denied a similar motion from a defendant last year. District Judge William Hayes also ruled against a dismissal motion for the same reason earlier this year. This means that Boosie will now likely face trial on the charges.
Meanwhile, more shakeups to gun ownership law could be coming in the next few months. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case pertaining to the legality of gun ownership for those with domestic violence restraining orders. While it is a different case to the precedent Booise is arguing, it could still be pertinent to the overall case of those with felonies seeking the right to bear arms.
[via]
