Public Safety
Vehicle evasion keeps a felon-in-possession ban in place
The Fifth Circuit focused on Cordova’s earlier attempt to escape arrest by car, not just his drug conviction. Judges said that conduct made him a credible threat to public safety under federal gun law.
A federal appeals court said a car chase can count as evidence of dangerousness. On that basis, the Fifth Circuit kept the gun ban in place for Peter Villa Cordova and rejected his Second Amendment challenge.
- The Fifth Circuit upheld the gun ban as applied to Peter Villa Cordova.
- His earlier vehicle flight from police helped the court find dangerousness.
- The ruling leaves the federal felon-in-possession law in place for him.
- In federal court, the Fifth Circuit said Peter Villa Cordova could remain barred from possessing a gun because his record includes evading arrest or detention with a motor vehicle
- The panel treated that kind of flight as evidence that he was dangerous enough to fall within the federal felon-in-possession law, 18 U.S.C
In federal court, the Fifth Circuit said Peter Villa Cordova could remain barred from possessing a gun because his record includes evading arrest or detention with a motor vehicle. The panel treated that kind of flight as evidence that he was dangerous enough to fall within the federal felon-in-possession law, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which bars some people with felony convictions from having firearms.
Cordova had pleaded guilty in the Western District of Texas to possessing a firearm after a felony conviction. His as-applied Second Amendment challenge failed because the court focused not just on his earlier drug-possession conviction, but on the decision to use a car to flee police, conduct the judges said is often catastrophic.
Why the car mattered
The Fifth Circuit’s reasoning turned on dangerousness. A person who tries to escape arrest in a vehicle, the panel said, shows a level of risk that matters when a court asks whether the gun ban can constitutionally reach that defendant.
That leaves Cordova with the same federal firearms restriction he challenged, and it gives prosecutors another foothold in future cases where a defendant’s past includes more than a quiet possession offense. The court did not say every felony conviction automatically justifies the ban on its own. It said this one did, because the record showed a real-world threat on the road.