Summary
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss an indictment for possessing a firearm as a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Applying the Supreme Court’s framework from New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen and United States v. Rahimi, the court evaluated whether the statute is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Relying on circuit precedent in United States v. Williams, the court concluded that the defendant’s extensive criminal history, which includes multiple violent offenses and domestic violence incidents, demonstrates dangerousness sufficient to justify his disarmament under the Second Amendment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to Morton under the Second Amendment.
- Whether Morton's criminal history demonstrates the dangerousness necessary under Sixth Circuit precedent to constitutionally disarm him.
- Whether the federal government's alleged lack of authority at the founding to disarm felons renders § 922(g)(1) facially unconstitutional.
- Whether remand was required for the district court to conduct a more intensive individualized dangerousness inquiry.
Holdings
- Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to Morton because his criminal history demonstrates dangerousness, including violent crimes against persons.
- The argument that the federal government lacked authority at ratification to disarm felons does not invalidate § 922(g)(1); to the extent the argument is facial, the Sixth Circuit rejected it in Williams.
- Remand was unnecessary because the district court made the requisite individualized assessment of Morton's dangerousness.
Key quotations
“Because Morton's criminal history demonstrates dangerousness, his conviction is consistent with the Second Amendment as interpreted in this court's recent decision in United States v. Williams, 113 F.4th 637 (6th Cir. 2024).” (Page 2)
“Accordingly, § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to him.” (Page 8)
“Morton's criminal record demonstrates dangerousness, specifically that he has committed “violent” crimes “against the person.”” (Page 9)
Factual background
Police officers arrested Morton after observing him evade them and resist arrest. A search of his vehicle revealed two handguns, including one hidden under the driver's seat. Morton had at least six prior felony convictions, including two convictions for being a felon in possession of a firearm, fleeing or evading police, burglary, and intimidating a participant in a legal process, as well as multiple assault and domestic-violence convictions. His prior record included shooting at his former girlfriend and her family, threatening her while armed, taking her phone to prevent her from calling police, and punching another former girlfriend.
Procedural history
A grand jury indicted Morton under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The Eastern District of Kentucky denied his motion to dismiss, concluding that his prior felonies demonstrated that he was a serious and direct threat to public safety. Morton then entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.