Background
The defendant, Talanzo Debrow, was convicted of aggravated criminal damage to property under Louisiana law after attempting to flee a traffic stop by ramming police vehicles. Years later, he was charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon under federal law. Debrow moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that disarming him based on his property crime conviction violated the Second Amendment. The district court denied the motion, and Debrow pleaded guilty while reserving his right to appeal.
The court’s reasoning
The court applied the historical inquiry required by the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association versus Bruen. It held that the government bears the burden to show a historical tradition of disarming individuals with analogous criminal histories. The court found the government’s argument untenable because it relied on uncharged conduct and a general dangerousness inquiry rather than the specific predicate conviction. The court also determined that the property crime statute, which required only foreseeability of harm, did not clearly align with historical going-armed laws that prohibited threats of physical violence.
The dissent
Debrow’s as-applied challenge fails because the face of his predicate felony clarifies that its commission involved a clear threat of violence to others.
Haynes
What it means going forward
The decision clarifies that the government cannot rely on uncharged conduct or broad dangerousness assessments to uphold firearm possession bans under the Second Amendment. It requires district courts to conduct a specific historical analysis for property crimes that do not clearly involve the use or threatened use of physical force.