Home » Weapons

Articles Posted in Weapons

Posted In: | By

Constitutional challenges involving firearm offenses can reshape how criminal statutes are enforced and interpreted. A recent Florida ruling examined whether the state could prohibit otherwise law-abiding adults between the ages of 18 and 20 from carrying a concealed firearm solely because of their age. The court’s ruling addressed important questions regarding the scope of the Second Amendment and the constitutional limits on age-based firearm restrictions. If you have been charged with a firearm offense, it is smart to speak to a Tampa gun crime defense attorney to determine how to protect your interests.

History of the Case

Allegedly, law enforcement responded to a report that an individual had displayed a handgun toward a vehicle. Officers located the defendant, who matched the description provided by the caller, conducted a pat down, and discovered an unholstered handgun concealed on the defendant’s person. Because the defendant was 18 years old, the State charged the defendant with carrying a concealed firearm and improper exhibition of a firearm.

Reportedly, the defendant moved to dismiss the concealed firearm charge, arguing that Florida’s statutory scheme unconstitutionally prevented otherwise law-abiding adults between the ages of 18 and 20 from exercising their Second Amendment right to carry a firearm for self-defense. The prosecution argued that requiring individuals to satisfy licensing requirements and restricting concealed carry for certain persons served legitimate public safety interests. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that the licensing provisions were designed to ensure that only responsible citizens could lawfully carry concealed firearms. The defendant subsequently entered a no-contest plea while specifically reserving the right to appeal the denial of the dispositive motion to dismiss.

Second Amendment Rights Under Florida Law

The court reviewed the constitutional challenge de novo because the case presented a pure question of law involving the validity of a statute. Applying the analytical framework established by the United States Supreme Court, the court first considered whether the plain language of the Second Amendment protects the conduct at issue. The court concluded that adults between the ages of 18 and 20 are included among “the people” referenced in the Second Amendment and therefore possess the constitutional right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

The court next examined whether Florida demonstrated that its age based restriction was consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Looking to decisions from the United States Supreme Court and several federal appellate courts, the court determined that historical evidence did not support categorically denying otherwise law-abiding adults between the ages of 18 and 20 the ability to lawfully carry firearms for self-defense. While historical regulations recognized restrictions involving convicted felons, mentally ill individuals, and persons who posed credible threats to others, the court found no comparable historical tradition treating all young adults as a prohibited class.

The court also rejected arguments that modern public safety concerns alone could justify the restriction. It explained that under current Second Amendment jurisprudence, the government must establish that the challenged regulation aligns with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation rather than relying solely on policy considerations. Because the challenged statute barred adults aged 18 to 20 from qualifying for concealed carry solely on age grounds, the court concluded that the law imposed an unconstitutional burden on a protected constitutional right.

Accordingly, the court held that the challenged statutory provision was facially unconstitutional as applied to adults aged 18 to 20. It vacated the defendant’s conviction for carrying a concealed firearm and remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Meet with an Assertive Tampa Gun Crime Defense Attorney

If you are charged with a gun offense, it is important to meet with an attorney to discuss your potential defenses. The assertive Tampa gun crime defense attorneys at Hanlon Law are dedicated to helping people protect their interests in criminal proceedings, and if you hire us, we will advocate aggressively on your behalf. Contact Hanlon Law through our online form or call 813-228-7095 to set up a confidential meeting.

Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

Federal sentencing proceedings often involve disputes over guideline enhancements that can substantially increase a defendant’s prison exposure. In many cases, the outcome depends not only on the underlying facts but also on whether those facts are properly challenged at sentencing. A recent decision from a Florida federal court demonstrates how a defendant’s failure to object to factual findings in a presentence report can significantly limit appellate arguments and ultimately determine the outcome of a sentencing appeal. If you are facing federal criminal charges, including firearm-related offenses, it is essential to consult an experienced Tampa criminal defense attorney to ensure that your rights are protected at every stage of the proceedings.

Factual and Procedural Background

Allegedly, the defendant pleaded guilty in federal court to possessing a firearm after having previously been convicted of a felony. Following the guilty plea, the United States Probation Office prepared a presentence investigation report to assist the court in determining an appropriate sentence.

Reportedly, the presentence report concluded that the firearm involved in the offense was capable of accepting a large-capacity magazine. Based on that finding, the report recommended application of a sentencing enhancement under the federal sentencing guidelines. At the sentencing hearing, the court asked whether either party objected to the findings contained in the report. No objections were raised by the defense. Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

Sentence-reduction motions under federal law often require courts to balance evolving sentencing reforms with the finality of criminal judgments. Defendants frequently invoke statutory changes and constitutional developments in an effort to obtain relief, but courts apply strict standards when determining whether a reduced sentence is warranted. A recent Florida ruling issued in a drug crime case demonstrates how difficult it can be to meet the “extraordinary and compelling reasons” requirement, particularly when the underlying sentencing framework remains unchanged. If you are charged with a drug crime, you should speak with a knowledgeable Tampa criminal defense attorney to understand your available options.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the defendant had a lengthy criminal history that included multiple state convictions for drug offenses and violent crimes spanning several years. These prior convictions ultimately played a significant role in the defendant’s later federal sentencing.

Reportedly, a federal grand jury indicted the defendant on charges including conspiracy to distribute cocaine, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, and possession of a firearm as a convicted felon. The defendant entered a guilty plea to these charges.

Posted In: | By

Federal firearms statutes dramatically increase sentencing exposure when prosecutors successfully link a weapon to a qualifying crime of violence. Disputes over what offenses meet that definition often determine whether defendants face decades in additional prison time or even life sentences. A recent decision from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida addresses this high-stakes issue in the context of cyberstalking allegations that resulted in death. If you are charged with a firearm offense, it is wise to talk to a Tampa criminal defense attorney to understand how these classifications may affect your case.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the government charged the defendant in a superseding indictment with multiple firearm-related offenses, including discharging a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, conspiring to use and carry a firearm during a crime of violence, and causing the death of a person during a crime of violence. Each of those charges depended on whether an underlying cyberstalking offense qualified as a crime of violence under federal law.

Reportedly, the predicate offense alleged by the government involved cyberstalking resulting in death, charged under federal statutes that prohibit using electronic communications or interstate facilities to place another person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. The indictment alleged that the victim ultimately died as a result of the charged course of conduct. Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

When the State prosecutes a crime, it must adhere strictly to the charges set forth in the information, as due process requires that defendants receive clear notice of the specific crimes they must defend against at trial. As such, if the State proceeds on a theory that differs from the offense actually charged, even subtle statutory differences can result in reversible error. A recent decision from a Florida court illustrates how convictions may be overturned when the evidence and theory of prosecution do not align with the charging document. If you are facing firearm-related charges, you should consult a Tampa criminal defense attorney to ensure your rights are fully protected.

Case Setting

Allegedly, the defendant went uninvited to her daughter’s apartment complex, accompanied by another family member, because she was concerned about the daughter’s relationship and wanted to persuade her to leave the residence. An argument developed in the parking lot between the daughter and the accompanying family member, which escalated into physical pushing and shoving.

Reportedly, the defendant became involved in the altercation while carrying a firearm in a hip holster, which she routinely wore for personal protection. During the physical struggle, the firearm discharged and struck the daughter, causing injury. The evidence presented at trial conflicted as to how the firearm came out of the holster and who caused it to fire. Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

A federal firearm charge is one of the most serious situations a defendant can encounter. A single conviction can mean years in federal prison, especially when a judge imposes a sentence above the recommended guidelines. Defendants often believe that a guilty plea ends their chances of defending themselves, but post-conviction motions and appeals can sometimes provide a second opportunity to challenge unfair rulings. A recent decision from a Florida court shows how courts approach these challenges and why building a strong defense early is essential. If you are accused of illegally possessing a firearm, a Tampa federal criminal defense attorney can help protect your rights and fight for the best possible outcome.

Factual and Procedural History

It is reported that the defendant was involved in a road rage incident in January 2023 in which he exchanged gunfire with another driver. Allegedly, during the altercation, the defendant mistakenly fired into a third vehicle occupied by two adolescents, narrowly missing their heads and injuring one of them with shattered glass.

Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

In federal criminal cases, the government must prove that a defendant knowingly possessed a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense in order to secure a conviction. At trial, proper jury instructions and fair evidentiary rulings are critical to ensure that the defendant receives a constitutionally sound proceeding. A recent decision by a Florida federal court demonstrates how courts review claims involving evidentiary exclusions and the interpretation of federal firearm statutes. If you are charged with a drug or firearm offense in federal court, it is vital to speak with a Tampa criminal defense attorney who understands the complex interplay between evidentiary law and constitutional protections.

Case Setting

It is reported that the defendant was indicted on several counts, including conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The charges arose after the defendant was stopped by police while traveling with a co-defendant. Law enforcement officers searched the vehicle and discovered methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, digital scales, and a loaded firearm. The government introduced evidence linking the defendant to both the vehicle and the controlled substances.

It is alleged that the prosecution argued the firearm was used to facilitate the drug trafficking operation, and that the firearm’s presence in close proximity to the drugs supported a conviction under § 924(c). The case proceeded to trial, and the jury convicted the defendant. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment that included a mandatory consecutive sentence for the firearm offense. The defendant appealed his conviction, asserting that the jury instructions on the firearm count were deficient and that the trial court improperly excluded certain defense evidence. Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

In federal firearms prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), the government must prove not only that the defendant possessed a firearm, but also that the defendant knew at the time of possession that he was prohibited from doing so due to a prior felony conviction. This knowledge requirement was clarified by the United States Supreme Court in Rehaif v. United States in 2019. A recent decision from a federal court sitting in Florida illustrates how courts evaluate cases tried before Rehaif and whether a missing jury instruction on the knowledge element requires reversal. If you are facing a firearm charge under federal law, a knowledgeable Tampa criminal defense attorney can assess whether your constitutional rights were upheld during trial and sentencing.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that the defendant was convicted in federal court of possessing a firearm as a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The charge stemmed from an incident in which law enforcement officers found a loaded pistol during a search of the defendant’s vehicle following a traffic stop. The defendant had previously been convicted of multiple felonies and was prohibited from possessing firearms.

Allegedly, the trial in this case occurred before the Supreme Court’s decision in Rehaif v. United States, which held that the government must prove the defendant knew of his felony status when he possessed the firearm. At trial, the court instructed the jury that to convict, it must find that the defendant knowingly possessed the firearm, but the instruction did not include the requirement that the defendant knew he was a convicted felon. Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

In Florida criminal matters, a conviction must be based on legally sufficient evidence proving every element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecution fails to meet this burden, a defendant can challenge their conviction on appeal, as illustrated in a recent Florida decision issued in a weapons crime case where the defendant successfully argued that the State failed to present adequate evidence of an essential element of the charged crime. If you are facing gun crime charges or wish to appeal a conviction, it is smart to confer with a skilled Tampa gun crime defense attorney promptly.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of Florida law. Reportedly, during trial, defense counsel stipulated that the defendant was a convicted felon, but the trial court did not conduct a formal colloquy to confirm the defendant’s knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to require the State to prove that status beyond a reasonable doubt. It is reported that the State failed to introduce either a certified record of the defendant’s prior felony conviction or a formal stipulation into evidence.

It is alleged that following the trial, the jury returned a guilty verdict, and the defendant was sentenced to one year of reporting probation. The defendant subsequently appealed the conviction, arguing that the State’s failure to introduce sufficient evidence of his prior felony conviction constituted a fundamental error requiring reversal. Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

People convicted of felonies often lose certain rights, like the right to possess a weapon. As such, if they are subsequently found with a gun in their possession, they may be charged with a crime. Additionally, depending on their criminal history, they may be sentenced as a career criminal. In a recent Florida gun crime case, the court discussed the grounds for deeming a defendant a career criminal before ultimately determining the defendant was properly classified. If you are charged with a weapons offense, it is smart to meet with a Tampa gun crime defense attorney to determine your options.

History of the Case

It is alleged that in 2021, during a traffic stop, the defendant was found in possession of a firearm and ammunition. He subsequently pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of federal law. Prior to sentencing, the probation office drafted a presentence investigation report that included an enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) due to the defendant’s three prior convictions for crimes that were either violent felonies or serious drug offenses.

It is reported that these convictions included two for aggravated assault in 2003 and 2015 and one for delivery of cocaine in 2007. The defendant objected to the ACCA enhancement, arguing that his prior convictions for aggravated assault did not qualify as violent felonies and his prior drug crime conviction did not qualify as a serious drug offense. However, the district court overruled his objections, deemed each conviction as qualifying under the ACCA, and imposed a 180-month sentence. The defendant appealed. Continue Reading ›