Federal Judge Dismisses Gun Possession Case Against Rapper Boosie Badazz

A federal judge in San Diego has dismissed the criminal gun possession case against Louisiana rapper Boosie Badazz, citing a recent federal appeals court ruling that allows some convicted felons to possess firearms. Boosie, whose real name is Torence Ivy Hatch, faced charges of being a felon in possession of a firearm based on prior non-violent drug convictions in Louisiana.

The dismissal came after defense attorney Meghan Blanco argued that a precedent-setting ruling by a three-judge panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed convicted felons to possess firearms, rendering the charges against Boosie unconstitutional. The ruling, which disarmed a Los Angeles man with non-violent drug offenses, provided a strong legal basis for the defense’s motion to dismiss.

Federal prosecutors, who had previously opposed a similar motion last year, did not oppose the dismissal request this time. U.S. District Judge Cathy Bencivengo granted the motion on Friday, relieving Boosie of the stress and allowing him to put the case behind him. Blanco expressed her happiness for Boosie and his family, highlighting the challenging conditions of pre-trial release they had to endure.

The dismissal of Boosie’s case is one of the first, and most high-profile, instances where the recent 9th Circuit ruling has had a significant impact. The ruling challenges the long-standing federal ban on felons possessing firearms, which has been in place since 1938. Defendants across the country have argued that the ban is inconsistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation and violates the Second Amendment.

Boosie’s case adds to the growing debate surrounding the constitutionality of the federal gun law. The Supreme Court’s June 2022 ruling emphasized the need for weapons laws to align with the “Second Amendment’s plain text” and the nation’s historical firearm regulation. While defendants have had mixed results in challenging the ban, the recent 9th Circuit ruling has provided a new precedent that could have broader implications.

In Boosie’s case, San Diego police initially arrested him on suspicion of being a felon in possession of a firearm after a detective allegedly spotted a gun handle in his waistband during a music video shoot. However, the guns were found in a vehicle associated with Boosie, not on his person. His previous convictions for non-violent drug charges made him ineligible to own or possess a firearm.

Boosie’s attorneys had previously argued that the federal gun law was too recent to be historically relevant and inconsistent with firearm laws from the time the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791. Although their motion was initially denied, the 9th Circuit’s ruling in the Duarte case changed the landscape, leading to the dismissal of Boosie’s charges.

It remains to be seen whether the full en banc panel of judges will hear the Duarte case, as requested by the government. If the panel overturns the three-judge panel’s ruling, it could potentially reinstate the ban on non-violent drug convicts possessing firearms. However, Boosie’s attorney hopes that prosecutors would not pursue additional charges against her client, considering his compliance during pre-trial release and engagement in lawful activities at the time of the incident.