Opinion
20-cr-00354-HFS
11-29-2022
United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Angelo D. Jones, Defendant.
ORDER
HOWARD F. SACHS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
Defendant's motion to dismiss (Doc. 59) is hereby DENIED. The report and recommendation (Doc. 71) is ADOPTED. Supplementing the report I rely on United States v. Jackson, 2022 WL 4226229 (D. Minn.) and the views of five Justices in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S.Ct. 211 (2022), represented by the concurrence. Defendant's argument that the opinion of the Court better represents the views of the Chief Justice and Justice Kavanaugh is unrealistic in that the apparent reason for the concurrence was to reconfirm the constitutionality of the prohibition of firearm possession by felons. While there is a serious question regarding the validity of the prohibition as applied to certain classes of felons, such as tax evaders, defendant does not contend he is in such a special protected class, and the bond report (Doc. 32) shows that he has no realistic claim to protected possession of firearms.