« Prison Policy Initiative reports on "Winnable criminal justice reforms in 2023" | Main | Arizona completes execution of man convited of committing a double murder 42 years ago »
November 16, 2022
Another district court finds § 922(n), which criminalizes a person under indictment from receiving a firearm, to be unconstitutional
In this post from a couple of months ago, I noted the notable 25-page ruling in US v. Quiroz, No. PE:22-CR-00104-DC (W.D. Tex. Sept. 19, 2022) (available here), in which a federal district court in Texas decided that Bruen renders § 922(n) unconstitutional. As of earlier this week, another federal district court, this one in Oklahoma, formally agreed. Here is the start and conclusion of the 12-page opinion in US v. Stambaugh, No. CR-22-00218-PRW-2 (W.D. Ok. Nov. 14, 2022) (available here):
Before the Court is Defendant Stolynn Shane Stambaugh’s Motion to Dismiss Count 3 of the Indictment as Unconstitutional (Dkt. 31) and the United States’ Response in Opposition (Dkt. 38). Stambaugh seeks to dismiss Count 3 — Receipt of a Firearm by a Person Under Indictment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(n) — on grounds that § 922(n), as applied to him, violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The motion has been briefed and heard. For the reasons explained below, the Court GRANTS Stambaugh’s motion (Dkt. 31)....
A historical analogue to support constitutional applications of § 922(n) might well exist, but the United States hasn’t pointed to it. And because it is the United States’ burden to demonstrate that laws like § 922(n) are “part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms,” that failure is fatal. While the United States needed not find a “historical twin,” surety laws and § 922(n) are simply not “analogous enough to pass constitutional muster,” particularly not in a case like this, where there is nothing in the record to support the United States’ contention that Stambaugh is categorically a “dangerous person” merely because he was indicted for larceny. Accordingly, the Court finds that § 922(n) is unconstitutional as applied to Stambaugh and therefore GRANTS his motion to dismiss Count 3 of the Indictment.
Some prior recent related posts:
- By 6-3 vote, SCOTUS expands Second Amendment rights by striking down NY public-carry licensing requirements
- Are all broad felon-in-possession criminal gun statutes now constitutionally suspect after Bruen?
- Are broad drug user gun dispossession statutes now constitutionally suspect after Bruen?
- Spotlighting notable (and constitutionally suspect?) aspects of federal firearm prohibition enforcement
- District Court declares § 922(n), which criminalizes a person under indictment from receiving a firearm, to be unconstitutional
- Notable new district court opinion strikes down federal serial number law but upholds felon possession ban applying Bruen
- Federal judge orders briefing on whether to appoint historian to resolve challenge to federal felon gun possession ban after Bruen
- New district court opinion "holds that § 922(g)(8) is unconstitutional under Bruen's framework"
November 16, 2022 at 01:09 PM | Permalink