United States v. Chester
628 F.3d 673 (2010)
Rule of Law:
A law that burdens Second Amendment rights is subject to a two-part inquiry: first, whether the law regulates conduct that falls within the historical scope of the Second Amendment, and if so, second, whether the law satisfies the appropriate level of means-end scrutiny. Regulations restricting firearm possession by individuals who are not law-abiding, such as those convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors, are subject to intermediate scrutiny.
Facts:
- In February 2005, William Samuel Chester was convicted in West Virginia of misdemeanor domestic assault and battery.
- In October 2007, police officers responded to a 911 call reporting a domestic disturbance at Chester's home.
- Chester's wife informed the officers that Chester had grabbed her by the throat and threatened to kill her.
- During a subsequent search of the residence, officers discovered a 12-gauge shotgun and a 9mm handgun.
- Chester admitted that he owned both of the firearms found in his home.
Procedural Posture:
- William Samuel Chester was indicted in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia for possessing firearms after being convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9).
- Chester filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, claiming the statute violated his Second Amendment rights under District of Columbia v. Heller.
- The district court denied Chester's motion to dismiss.
- Chester entered a conditional guilty plea, preserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion.
- Chester (appellant) appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, where the government was the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), which prohibits individuals convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence from possessing a firearm, violate the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms?
Opinions:
Majority - Traxler, Chief Judge
Undetermined on the current record. The court established the analytical framework for evaluating the law's constitutionality but remanded for the government to present evidence. A two-part approach is appropriate for Second Amendment claims. First, a court must determine if the challenged law burdens conduct within the original scope of the Second Amendment. Because historical evidence is inconclusive as to whether the right extended to domestic violence misdemeanants, the court must assume Chester's conduct is protected. Second, the court must apply an appropriate level of means-end scrutiny. Because Chester's prior conviction places him outside the core Second Amendment right of 'law-abiding, responsible citizens,' intermediate scrutiny applies, not strict scrutiny. Under this standard, the government must show a 'reasonable fit' between the law and a 'substantial' governmental objective. The government has not yet provided sufficient evidence to meet this burden, so the case is remanded for further proceedings where the government can attempt to make its evidentiary showing.
Concurring - Davis, Circuit Judge
No, the statute does not violate the Second Amendment. While concurring in the judgment to remand, the law is constitutional as applied to Chester. Chester is not a 'law-abiding, responsible citizen' protected by the core of the Second Amendment. Intermediate scrutiny is the correct standard, and § 922(g)(9) easily satisfies it. The government has an important interest in preventing armed domestic violence, and readily available data demonstrates a substantial relationship between that goal and prohibiting firearm possession by those convicted of domestic violence. The importation of First Amendment doctrines into Second Amendment jurisprudence is problematic, but under any proper analysis, the district court on remand should have no difficulty upholding the statute.
Analysis:
This case is significant for establishing an influential two-part analytical framework for Second Amendment challenges after the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Heller. By rejecting a simple categorical approach and instead requiring a historical inquiry followed by means-end scrutiny, the court created a structured methodology that many other circuits would adopt. The decision's application of intermediate scrutiny to a person with a criminal history, rather than strict scrutiny, was pivotal in creating a tiered system of Second Amendment rights, where the level of protection depends on whether the claimant is a 'law-abiding, responsible citizen.' This framework has since guided lower courts in evaluating a wide range of firearm regulations.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: United States v. Chester (2010)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"