Summary
This Sixth Circuit opinion addresses a defendant's facial Second Amendment challenges to federal statutes prohibiting firearm possession by felons and using firearms during drug trafficking crimes. The court finds the defendant lacks Article III standing to challenge the felon-in-possession statute after the government dismissed that charge, but proceeds to evaluate the challenge to the drug-trafficking firearm statute. Applying the Bruen historical-analog test, the court concludes that prohibiting firearm use during unlawful conduct falls outside the scope of the Second Amendment as historically understood and affirms the district court's ruling.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) facially violates the Second Amendment.
- Whether 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) facially violates the Second Amendment.
Holdings
- Risner lacks standing to challenge § 922(g)(1) and, even assuming standing, the statute is constitutional on its face.
- The facial challenge fails; § 924(c)(1)(A) is constitutional because the regulated conduct—using a firearm during drug trafficking—is not within the Second Amendment’s protected scope.
Key quotations
“The government may disarm individuals who present a credible threat to the physical safety of others.” (at 662)
“Historical tradition does not extend the Second Amendment’s protection to the possession of weapons by individuals engaged in criminal activity.” (at 518)
Factual background
Between January and November 2022 Risner conspired with two others to distribute methamphetamine in Knott County, Kentucky. A confidential informant purchased meth from Risner, and a video showed a pistol on a coffee table in his home. A later search warrant seized a pistol, cash, a digital scale, and cell phones. Risner was indicted on ten counts, including possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense.
Procedural history
The district court denied Risner's motion to dismiss counts under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(c)(1)(A). Risner pleaded guilty to conspiracy and the firearm‑in‑furtherance count, while the felon‑in‑possession charge was dismissed as part of the plea. The plea agreement limited his right to appeal to the facial challenges to the two statutes, which he appealed to this circuit.