Second Amendment Rights Forfeited by Past Terroristic Threats Conviction

Read the original at Reason ↗
Cite

Volokh, E. (2026, October 14). Second Amendment Rights Forfeited by Past Terroristic Threats Conviction. Reason. https://reason.com/volokh/2026/10/14/second-amendment-rights-forfeited-by-past-terroristic-threats-conviction/

Dated from the outlet's own feed. Check the original for its byline.

Reason · collected 2026-10-14 · by Eugene Volokh

Quick Summary

Judge Stephanos Bibas of the Third Circuit Court wrote an opinion in U.S. v. Bost, stating that individuals convicted of terroristic threats may be disarmed based on those convictions alone due to the risk they pose for misusing firearms. In 2002, James Bost carjacked someone and threatened to kill them unless they gave him money, leading to a conviction for terroristic threats among other crimes. Years later, he was found with a stolen pistol twice, resulting in federal charges under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The court ruled that Bost's case could proceed as the Second Amendment does not protect felons from gun possession bans if there is evidence of a risk for violent misuse of firearms.
Written locally by qwen2.5:14b on 2026-10-14, using this article's own text rather than the other coverage of the same event (that is the story summary below).

AI analysis runs on qwen2.5:14b, locally

Story summary

Summary unavailable.

Written for “Second Amendment Rights Case” on 2026-10-14, grounded in this article and the 0 other(s) covering the same event.
Why this leaning score
The article's own words the score was based on. Each is quoted verbatim and was checked against the article text before being stored, so you can find it in the original.
Reading Leans right (beta estimate) Confidence high 1 quote(s) discarded as not found in the article
Leaning: leans right for article 80423 (high confidence, 1 verified quote) · logged 2026-10-14

Story

📰 Second Amendment Rights Case
Politics · 1 article(s) covering the same event.

Compared with similar articles

This article reads leans right and hedges 14% of its claims. Each row says how that neighbour differs.
Fox News
⚖️ leaning not scored 🔴 15% hedged 3 of 20 📰 publisher trust 68
“The articles describe different aspects and rulings within the same judicial proceedings but focus on distinct outcomes concerning Second Amendment rights for individuals with differing types of prior convictions.”
How this article was measured signals, leaning charts, publisher record, byline, topics and claims

Signals How these are calculated →

Claims extracted
70
sentences that state something as happening or true
Uncertain
14%
10 of 70 hedged ("reportedly", "may", "according to")
Leaning
Leans right
of the writing, not the subject · beta estimate
Publisher signals
66/100
Reason's corrections and hedging, across everything collected from it. Not a measure of accuracy.
Outlets on this story
1
Politics
Same framing elsewhere
1
articles that frame the event the way this one does
Analyzed 2026-10-14 · how these are computed

How this is being covered How these are calculated →

Article leaning vs. publisher reliability
Source leaning vs. consistency

Publisher

Reason · 727 article(s) · 4 correction(s) detected
Running correction rate · 4 correction(s)

Who wrote this

Eugene Volokh
139 article(s) here · 1 carrying a prediction
🔮 While any one of FirstBank's services to Epstein may be claimed to be "routine" (though in many instances even that is suspicious), together, the complaint alleges that FirstBank was deeply enmeshed in Epstein's misconduct for its own financial benefit….
🔮 We hold that some predicate crimes (like Bost's conviction for terroristic threats) demonstrate a prima facie risk of physical violence from misusing guns and that those convicted of such crimes may presumptively be disarmed based on those convictions alone….
🔮 However, when it came to Pride events, the newsroom was deviating from its typical editorial review process, and many reporters were beginning to go cover stories about Pride festivals as soon as they heard that the event was taking place—without discussing with the rest of the newsroom whether the story ought to be covered, whether it was duplicative of another story that had recently aired, or whether some unique aspect of the story could be explored in a way that highlighted the story's overall newsworthiness.
🔮 The Court will grant that motion as well, finding that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed not only on their due process claim, but also on their two First Amendment claims.
🔮 But if you submit exclusively to us before that, we will give you an answer within 14 days; and then if you'd like to have it published quickly, we can publish it in within a few months, if it's sufficiently clean and cite-checked by your research assistant.
🔮 Two NAMI supporters, whom we will call "June" and "Lynn," names we have randomly chosen in the interest of their privacy, were employees of a large health-insurance company and arrived early to set up a picnic area and booth to greet their participating coworkers and provide information about their employer.
🔮 And since the 1800s, courts have justified the rule, in part, based on the concern that affording every member of a large group a cause of action would threaten to stifle "free discussion" beneath an avalanche of "embittered and boundless litigation."
🔮 But Michelle Evans could have conveyed her political views without publishing the photo.
🔮 From the Sept. 30 decision in People v. Barraza by California Court of Appeal Justice Richard Huffman, joined by Justices William Dato and Truc Do: [1.] Alberto Jorge Barraza cut off parts of Nikko G.'s hair with a knife as Nikko tried to fight him off. Barraza stabbed Nikko in the leg, severing an artery and killing him.
🔮 In her deposition, [mother-in-law] explained her eye condition as one that could be corrected with reading glasses; she further explained that it made it hard for her to make jewelry, but that she made jewelry more as a hobby and did not support herself by making jewelry.
2026-10-08 · assertive framing · Outlaw vs. In-Law Outlaw
Also by Eugene Volokh
Open Thread
2026-10-14 · Reason
Nothing else under this byline is closely related to this article, so these are simply their most recent.
All 139 articles by Eugene Volokh →

Topics

18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) Second Amendment Rights Third Circuit U.S. § 922(g)(1)

Subjects

Bost PERSON · 9× Third Circuit ORG · 2× U.S. GPE · 2× James Bost PERSON · 1× Pennsylvania GPE · 1× Range ORG · 1× Stephanos Bibas PERSON · 1× Volokh PERSON · 1× the Supreme Court's ORG · 1×

Narrative

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent Some excerpts from the long Third Circuit en banc opinion yesterday by Judge Stephanos Bibas in U.S. v. Bost (for another Third Circuit en banc case decided yesterday that reached the opposite result on different facts, see Second Amendment Rights Not Forfeited by Past Drunk Driving Conviction): The right to keep and bear arms has limits, and this is one: Those who pose a risk of physical violence from misusing guns can be disarmed before that risk becomes a reality.
framing: assertive · carried by 1 article(s) · first seen 2026-10-14
🔮 We hold that some predicate crimes (like Bost's conviction for terroristic threats) demonstrate a prima facie risk of physical violence from misusing guns and that those convicted of such crimes may presumptively be disarmed based on those convictions alone….

Claims (70 extracted, 10 hedged)

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent Some excerpts from the long Third Circuit en banc opinion yesterday by Judge Stephanos Bibas in U.S. v. Bost (for another Third Circuit en banc case decided yesterday that reached the opposite result on different facts, see Second Amendment Rights Not Forfeited by Past Drunk Driving Conviction): The right to keep and bear arms has limits, and this is one: Those who pose a risk of physical violence from misusing guns can be disarmed before that risk becomes a reality. asserted
risk → decide → guns
Not every convict poses such a risk—but James Bost does. asserted
Bost → pose → risk
He pleaded guilty to terroristic threats and other crimes. asserted
He → plead → threats
Years later, police caught him with a pistol not once, but twice. asserted
police → catch → pistol
So he was charged with having a gun despite his convictions, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which makes it illegal for felons to have guns…. asserted
felons → charge → guns
But Bost's violent conviction is prima facie enough to disarm him. asserted
conviction → disarm → him
We hold that some predicate crimes (like Bost's conviction for terroristic threats) demonstrate a prima facie risk of physical violence from misusing guns and that those convicted of such crimes may presumptively be disarmed based on those convictions alone…. uncertain
those → hold → convictions
In 2002, Bost carjacked someone, threatening to kill the driver unless she gave him money. asserted
she → carjack → money
To get that money, he drove to her mother's home, where she escaped from the car, screaming for help. asserted
she → get → help
Bost was then arrested and pleaded guilty to terroristic threats and criminal conspiracy (as well as false imprisonment and simple assault). asserted
Bost → arrest → threats
One element of the terroristic-threats crime required "a threat to commit any crime of violence with intent to terrorize another." asserted
element → require → another
Bost was sentenced to four years' probation. asserted
Bost → sentence → probation
Later, while on bail for another arrest, Bost failed to appear in court. asserted
Bost → fail → court
U.S. Marshals tracked him down. asserted
Marshals → track → him
They found him in his girlfriend's home, next to a couch with a stolen .38 caliber pistol on it. asserted
They → find → it
Bost was indicted federally for possessing a stolen gun and possessing a gun despite his convictions (based on the terroristic-threats and conspiracy convictions). asserted
Bost → indict → convictions
He moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that § 922(g)(1) [the federal bans on felons possessing guns -EV] is unconstitutional as applied to him and that it is facially unconstitutional…. asserted
it → move → him
The court held that the case against Bost could go forward: The Second Amendment secures the right of "the people" to "keep and bear Arms." uncertain
Amendment → hold → Arms
Since felons are part of "the people," the amendment protects what § 922(g)(1) forbids—a felon's having a gun. asserted
felon → protect → gun
So the government must justify this restriction by analogizing to our nation's historical tradition of gun regulation…. asserted
government → justify → regulation
Two years ago, we held § 922(g)(1) unconstitutional as applied to a man with a prior conviction for food-stamp fraud.. asserted
§ → hold → fraud
But we flagged a limit to our holding, stressing that the government had no evidence that Range posed a risk of violence to others or that his crime "[was] closely associated with physical danger." asserted
crime → flag → danger
That aligned with the Supreme Court's later holding in Rahimi that, under a law banning such people from having guns, someone who poses "a clear threat of physical violence to another" person "may be disarmed." … uncertain
who → align → person
So § 922(g)(1) is constitutional insofar as it disarms convicts who pose a risk of physical violence from misusing guns. asserted
who → disarm → guns
Now we ask … how may the law address a risk of violence[, focusing on] … the nature of the restriction imposed, the process used to impose it, and its duration…. uncertain
law → ask → it
One was individualized: A court found someone to pose a risk of physical violence from misusing guns and disarmed him. asserted
someone → find → him
The other was categorical: A law targeted a disloyal group that risked violence to the community. asserted
that → target → community
In those instances, a member of the group could often get his rights back by showing that he himself did not pose a risk of violence. uncertain
he → get → violence
For centuries, disarmament was tied to a judge's finding that someone posed a risk of physical violence from misusing guns. asserted
someone → tie → guns
Sometimes, that meant punishing risky behavior. asserted
that → mean → behavior
Going-armed laws punished and disarmed those who used their weapons to menace others. asserted
who → go → others
Rooted in the old bans on affrays, they targeted conduct that spread fear and threatened the peace: going armed "to the Terror of the People." asserted
that → root → People
These laws were often enacted with bans on fighting, together targeting conduct likely to lead to violence. asserted
laws → enact → violence
Other laws, like surety laws, aimed to prevent harm before it happened. asserted
it → aim → harm
If someone credibly feared that another person posed a risk of physical violence, including by misusing his arms, he could complain to a magistrate. uncertain
he → fear → magistrate
The magistrate would hold a hearing, weigh the evidence, and decide whether the accused was likely to breach the peace. asserted
accused → hold → peace
If the risk was real, the accused had to post a bond promising to keep the peace for up to six months. asserted
accused → accuse → months
If he failed to post it, he would go to jail; if he breached the peace, he would forfeit the bond. asserted
he → fail → bond
Either way, the restraint was tailored to the person's risk…. asserted
restraint → tailor → risk
To be sure, some laws disarmed categories of people, but these examples are few, fraught, and often discriminatory. asserted
examples → disarm → people
…and 30 more, not listed.
💬Give feedback
🕘History 🎫Support