Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 10-5071
COUNSEL
ARGUED: Richard W. Weston, WESTON LAW OFFICE,
Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellant. Stephan Edward
Oestreicher, Jr., UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF: R. Booth
Goodwin II, United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, Lisa G. Johnston, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Huntington, West Virginia; Lanny A. Breuer, Assistant Attorney General, Greg D. Andres, Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
Kevin R. Gingras, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
OPINION
HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge:
Section 922(g)(8) of Title 18 of the United States Code prohibits a person who is subject to a domestic violence protective order issued under certain specified circumstances from,
inter alia, possessing a firearm or ammunition in or affecting
interstate commerce. 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8). The sole issue
raised on appeal by Ronald Chapman (Chapman) is whether
his conviction on one count of violating 922(g)(8) survives
his as-applied constitutional challenge under the Second
Amendment, U.S. Const. amend. II. For reasons that follow,
we affirm the judgment of the district court.
I
On December 28, 2009, police officers from the Milton,
West Virginia Police Department responded to a 911 dispatch
involving shots being fired at the residence of Chapmans exwife, where he had been living for approximately two months.
Minutes before the 911 dispatch, Chapmans ex-wife had
found him in the master bedroom with a .45 caliber handgun.
Chapman informed her that he planned to kill himself. As
Chapmans ex-wife attempted to wrestle the handgun away
from him, two shots were fired into the bedroom wall. Chapman then retrieved a shotgun from the closet, which Chapmans ex-wife also wrestled away from him. Chapman then
picked up a .38 caliber revolver. At this point, Chapmans exwife fled to a neighbors residence across the street where she
made the 911 call. After Chapmans ex-wife had fled her residence, Chapman fired a shot out of the master bedroom window in her direction.
Upon arriving at the scene, the officers surrounded the exwifes residence. After approximately ten minutes, the officers convinced Chapman to exit the residence. Upon exiting,
Chapman was placed under arrest on state charges of wanton
endangerment. These charges were later dismissed. The officers then entered the residence to ensure that no one else was
inside. Upon entry, the officers saw three firearms in plain
view. Chapmans ex-wife then entered the residence and
aided the officers in finding three more firearms and 991
rounds of ammunition.
Chapman was subsequently indicted on one count of knowingly possessing six firearms and 991 cartridges of ammunition while simultaneously being subject to a domestic
violence protective order (DVPO), in violation of 922(g)(8)
and 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(2). With respect to the particulars of
Chapmans DVPO, the indictment alleged that it: (1) was
issued after a hearing of which Chapman received actual
notice, and at which he had an opportunity to participate; (2)
restrained Chapman from abusing, harassing, stalking, or
threatening his intimate partner, or engaging in other conduct
that would place his intimate partner in reasonable fear of
bodily injury; (3) included a finding that Chapman represents
a credible threat to the physical safety of his intimate partner;
and (4) by its terms, explicitly prohibited the use, attempted
use, or threatened use of physical force against his intimate
partner that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily
injury.
The intimate partner Chapmans DVPO sought to protect
was not Chapmans ex-wife; rather, the DVPO sought to protect a woman with whom Chapman had been in a romantic
II
We review de novo the district courts rejection of Chapmans as-applied Second Amendment challenge to
922(g)(8). See United States v. Malloy, 568 F.3d 166, 171
(4th Cir. 2009) ("This court reviews a challenge to the constitutionality of a federal statute de novo."), cert. denied, 130 S.
Ct. 1736 (2010).
The Second Amendment provides: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of
the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
U.S. Const. Amend. II. As the Supreme Court held in District
of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the right of the
people to keep and bear arms, as provided in the Second
Amendment, is an individual right without regard to militia
service, id. at 595; the core right being "the right of lawabiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth
and home," id. at 635.
We analyze Chapmans as-applied Second Amendment
challenge to 922(g)(8) under a two-part approach. United
States v. Chester, 628 F.3d 673, 680 (4th Cir. 2010). See also
United States v. Staten, No. 10-5318, 2011 WL 6016976, at
*3 (4th Cir. Dec. 5, 2011) (applying Chesters two-part
approach). The first part asks whether the challenged law
imposes a burden on conduct falling within the scope of the
Second Amendments guarantee as historically understood.
Chester, 628 F.3d at 680. If the answer to this question is no,
that is the end of the matter. Id. If the answer is yes, then we
move on to consider the second part of the two-part approach,
which involves application of the appropriate form of meansend scrutiny. Id.
Chapman takes the position that 922(g)(8) imposes a burden on conduct falling within the scope of the Second
Amendments guarantee as historically understood. The government takes the opposite position. We need not and do not
resolve this issue because, assuming arguendo that Chapmans Second Amendment rights are intact and that he is entitled to some measure of Second Amendment protection to
keep and possess firearms and ammunition in his home for
self-defense, our following analysis leads us to conclude that
intermediate scrutiny applies and 922(g)(8)(A)-(B) and
(C)(ii), as-applied to Chapman, survives intermediate scrutiny.1
Cf. Staten, No. 10-5318, 2011 WL 6016976, at *5 (addressing
as-applied challenge to 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9) and not resolving whether 922(g)(9) imposes a burden on conduct falling
within scope of the Second Amendments guarantee as historically understood, because, assuming arguendo that it does,
government carried its burden of defending statute under
intermediate scrutiny).
Having arrived at the second part of the two-part approach,
Chapman contends that strict scrutiny is the appropriate form
of means-end scrutiny to test the constitutionality of
922(g)(8). This is so, he argues, because his claim is within
the core right identified in Hellerthe right of a law-abiding,
responsible citizen to possess and carry a weapon for selfdefense.
Relying upon our decision in Chester, 628 F.3d at 673, the
government urges us to hold that intermediate scrutiny is the
appropriate standard of scrutiny for Chapman and similarly
situated persons, which is also the level of scrutiny applied by
the district court below.2 In Chester, we held that intermediate
scrutiny was the appropriate standard to analyze the defendants challenge to 922(g)(9), which statute prohibits a person who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of
1
We will explain later in this opinion why Chapmans Second Amendment challenge must be limited to 922(g)(8)(A)-(B) and (C)(ii). See
infra pp. 9-11.
2
Rational-basis review, which is the most lenient level of means-end
scrutiny, is inapplicable to review a law that burdens conduct protected
under the Second Amendment. Chester, 628 F.3d at 682.
We note that although our decision in Chester, 628 F.3d at 683, had
not yet issued at the time the district court denied Chapmans motion to
dismiss his indictment based upon his as-applied Second Amendment
challenge to 922(g)(8), the district court applied the materially same formulation of intermediate scrutiny as we subsequently adopted in Chester.
Chapman, 2010 WL 2403791, at *8. After evaluating the governments
evidence and Chapmans responsive evidence, the district court found that
922(g)(8) "is at least sufficiently tailored, in proportion to the governments compelling interest to pass intermediate scrutiny." Id.
10
11
12
13
World Wide Moving, N.V., 411 F.3d 502, 515 (4th Cir. 2005)
(voluntary and intelligent plea of guilty is admission of all
elements of a formal criminal charge).
The fourth and final narrowing feature of 922(g)(8)(A)(B), and (C)(ii) is 922(g)(8)(C)(ii), which requires that the
subject DVPO "by its terms explicitly prohibit[ ] the use,
attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such
intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to
cause bodily injury . . . ." Id. 922(g)(8)(C)(ii). Here, by his
guilty plea, Chapman admitted this element. Vann, 660 F.3d
at 774; Gosselin World Wide Moving, N.V., 411 F.3d at 515.
Mindful of 922(g)(8)(A)-(B) and (C)(ii)s exceedingly
narrow prohibitory sweep, we move on to evaluate the evidence offered by the government in support of its reasonable
fit burden. In order to carry this burden, as it did in Staten,
"the government primarily relies upon empirical evidence garnered from social science studies, the results of which and
conclusions drawn therefrom appear in scholarly social science reports (also commonly referred to as articles)." 2011
WL 6016976, at *7. Not surprisingly, the governments reasonable fit proffer here faithfully tracks the one it made with
respect to 922(g)(9) in Staten.
Because we have already set forth such evidence in detail
in Staten and found the government justified in relying upon
it to establish certain facts, 2011 WL 6016976, at **7-11, we
need not repeat that information here. Relying upon the social
science evidence as set forth and detailed in Staten, id., we
held "the government has established that: (1) domestic violence is a serious problem in the United States; (2) the rate of
recidivism among domestic violence misdemeanants is substantial; (3) the use of firearms in connection with domestic
violence is all too common; (4) the use of firearms in connection with domestic violence increases the risk of injury or
homicide during a domestic violence incident; and (5) the use
14
15
16