Opinion
4:22-CR-00098-BRW
08-04-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. WINSTON DALE CAVE
ORDER
BILLY ROY WILSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pending is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Indictment (Doc. No. 43). The Prosecution has responded. For the reasons set out below, the motion is DENIED.
Doc. No. 45.
I. BACKGROUND
On April 5, 2022, Defendant was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm.Defendant argues that his felony conviction from Texas would have been a misdemeanor in Arkansas, so he is not actually a felon. His argument is based on the United States Supreme Court's ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen.
Doc. No. 12.
142 S.Ct. 2111 (2022).
II. DISCUSSION
The statue under which Defendant is charged - 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) - provides that is is “unlawful for any person . . . who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” to possess a firearm. Defendant admits that he was convicted of such a crime in Texas - which would be “any court” - and he appears to admit that he possessed a firearm on March 14, 2022, since he claims he “waved his firearm (or even pointed) it at another whom he believed was following him.” There is nothing ambiguous about the statute or the indictment's allegations (and Defendant's apparent admissions). Even as applied to non-violent felons, based on the “historical record, Congress did not violate [Defendant's] rights by enacting § 922(g)(1)” because Defendant was “not a law-abiding citizen, and history supports the authority of Congress to prohibit possession of firearms by persons who have demonstrated disrespect for legal norms of society.” Additionally, Defendant self-defense claim is unavailing.
Doc. No. 43.
United States v. Smith, 171 F.3d 617, 620 (8th Cir. 1999) (“In construing a statute, we look first to the plain meaning of the words of the statute.”).
United States v. Jackson, 69 F.4th 495, 504 (8th Cir. 2023).
See United States v. Williams, 24 F.4th 1209, 1211 (8th Cir. 2022) (rejecting a defendant's “contention that the location of his firearm in the home for the alleged purpose of self-defense, by itself, makes § 922(g)(1) unconstitutional as applied to him.”).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set out above, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Indictment (Doc. No. 43) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.