Whether counsel is constitutionally deficient for failing to notify a U.S. citizen of the loss of Second Amendment rights due to a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction

QUESTION PRESENTED This case involves a serious and important question about fair warning to United States citizens of a collateral and direct Second Amendment consequence and where the responsibility of fair warning lies, the constitutional guarantee of the effective assistance of counsel, and whether the U.S. Constitution provides at least equal, if not greater protections, to U.S. citizens as it does to a Lawful Permanent Resident. In Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 364, 369 (2010), this Court held that counsel is constitutionally deficient by failing to advise a nonU.S. citizen of the collateral consequence and risk of deportation by entering a guilty plea. Because this case involves the question of whether Padilla’s reasoning should apply to misdemeanor domestic violence convictions to ensure criminal defendants make fully and fairly informed decisions before waiving their right to a jury trial, and also involves review of an eventual federal conviction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) (federal prohibition on firearms possession by those convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence), where the lack of knowledge on the federal firearms prohibition was raised to the federal district court, and a determination by this Court on the effect — if any — of 18 US.C. § 921(a)(33)(B) (providing either elements or affirmative defense exceptions to § 922(g)(9)) on the federal firearms prohibition, this case is an ideal vehicle to resolve and provide guidance to each of the states and federal circuits. The questions presented is: 2 Whether, pursuant to Padilla, counsel is a fortiori constitutionally deficient for failing to notify a United States citizen of the direct and/or : collateral consequence of the permanent and categorical loss of a fundamental, individual, and enumerated right to bear arms under the Second Amendment? Whether the categorical loss of one’s Second Amendment rights after a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction is a direct or collateral consequence, and where advisement to a criminal defendant of the . consequence lies? Or alternatively, whether Oklahoma law requires courts to advise criminal defendants of all constitutional rights being surrendered , by a guilty plea, including the loss of one’s Second Amendment rights? Whether Oklahoma’s Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act is an inadequate and ineffective independent state law ground to resolve this purely federal question? LIST OF PROCEEDINGS The following proceedings are directly related to this case within the meaning of this Court’s : Rule 14.1(b)(iii): e State of Oklahoma v. Bryan Christopher O'Rourke, No. CM-2007-3872 . e O'Rourke v. State, No. PC-2023-742 (OkLCr. Oct. 31, 2023) © United States v. O'Rourke, No. 4:10-cr-00171-GKF (N.D. Okla.) (currently stayed by the federal district court)!