Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 12-4276
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap.
James P. Jones,
District Judge. (2:10-cr-00017-JPJ-PMS-1)
Submitted:
October 5, 2012
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Jimmy
Scott
Elkins
pled
guilty
to
one
count
of
domestic
violence
protective
order,
in
violation
of
18
he
asserted
unsuccessfully
below,
namely,
that
arms
embodied
in
the
Second
Amendment.
Subsequently,
Id. at 680.
If so,
in
scrutiny.
accordance
with
the
appropriate
Id.
level
of
judicial
beyond
abuse.
the
home
or
to
perpetrators
of
domestic
2012); see United States v. Chapman, 666 F.3d 220, 225 (4th Cir.
2012); United States v. Staten, 666 F.3d 154, 159 (4th Cir.
2011),
both
cert.
Mahin
evaluate
without
denied,
and
an
132
Chapman,
as-applied
deciding,
S.
we
Ct.
applied
challenge
that
the
right
in
scrutiny
to
922(g)(8),
conduct
fell
assuming,
within
the
Hellerthe
in
citizen
self-defense.
However,
identified
responsible
(2012).
intermediate
to
relevant
1937
to
possess
right
and
of
carry
a
a
law-abiding,
weapon
for
scrutiny
requires
that
the
government
statute
and
substantial
government
governmental
objective
3
of
922(g)(8).
Chapman,
666
F.3d
at
227.
Accordingly,
we
conclude
that
922(g)(8)
order
for
Elkins
to
prevail
on
his
as-applied
between
Moore, 666
substantial
government
interest
of
reducing
court
order
that
(1)
satisfies
procedural
due
process;
the
protective
order,
noting
that
she
continued
to
was
issued.
We
find
this
assertion
insufficient
to
remove
constitutionality
of
the
statute
because
intermediate
Id.
We also reject Elkinss next argument that 922(g)(8)
opinion
as-applied
actually
challenge
rejects
to
the
notion
922(g)(8),
that
to
protective
survive
order
an
must
Id.
on
inadequate
hearsay
evidence
5
and
that
there
were
no
conclusive
findings
that
he
threat.
However,
as
validity
of
the
underlying
determination
of
922(g)(8).
the
represented
Government
whether
order
credible
correctly
is
Elkinss
argues,
irrelevant
conduct
future
the
to
falls
the
within
to
an
invalid,
protective
United
order.
States
v.
Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 535 (5th Cir. 2004) (emphasis omitted).
Other courts have reached the same conclusion, and we agree with
the
overwhelming
defendant
collateral
in
attack
protective order.
weight
of
federal
922(g)(8)
on
the
case
law
prosecution
merits
of
the
preclud[ing]
from
mounting
underlying
a
a
state
Elkins
argues
that
922(g)(8)
is
in
force.
Chapman,
666
F.3d
at
228.
Elkins
We
have
interpretation,
congressional
that
we
first
intent
by
[w]hen
and
engaging
in
statutory
strive
to
implement
foremost
examining
the
plain
language
of
the
statute.
Cir.
held
2010)
(internal
quotation
marks
omitted).
Section
922(g)(8).
interpretation,
enforced
in
Elkins
one
that
order
for
encourages
requires
an
entirely
protective
922(g)(8)
to
apply.
18
different
order
We
to
be
find
no
subject
to
domestic
violence
protective
order;
thus,
dispense
with
oral
we
affirm
argument
the
district
because
the
court
facts
judgment.
and
legal
AFFIRMED