Summary
This Sixth Circuit opinion addresses a Second Amendment as-applied challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which prohibits unlawful drug users from possessing firearms. Applying the Supreme Court’s framework in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, the court holds that while Congress may presumptively disarm classes of dangerous individuals, the statute can only be constitutionally enforced against those who pose a clear risk of future harm. Finding that the defendant’s conduct demonstrated he was dangerous, the court affirms the district court’s sentencing calculation.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) is constitutional as applied to VanOchten under the Second Amendment
- Whether the district court’s calculation of the base offense level was proper under the Sentencing Guidelines
Holdings
- Section 922(g)(3) is constitutional as applied to dangerous drug users, and therefore its application to VanOchten is valid.
- The district court’s calculation of a base offense level of 20 under § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B) was proper and not subject to reversal.
Key quotations
“Section 922(g)(3) can be applied to dangerous drug users consistent with the historical principle of “taking guns away from dangerous people.”” (at 319)
“Congress may, consistent with the Second Amendment’s historical scope, disarm illegal drug users as a group, so long as each member of that disarmed group has the opportunity to make an individualized showing that he himself is not actually dangerous.” (at 663)
Factual background
VanOchten, while drunk and high on marijuana, fired a rifle toward a propane tank in his backyard, possessed multiple firearms and three pipe bombs, and was arrested after deputies obtained a warrant. He pleaded guilty to possessing three unregistered firearms (pipe bombs) and was sentenced under the Sentencing Guidelines.
Procedural history
The district court sentenced VanOchten to 52 months after applying 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) and increasing his base offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines. VanOchten appealed, challenging the constitutionality of § 922(g)(3) and the guideline calculation.