Opinion
22-cr-01322-JCH
10-19-2023
UNITED STATES, Plaintiff, v. ADAM MANN, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant Adam Mann moves to dismiss his felon-in-possession charge because he argues that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violates his Second Amendment rights. See Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 52). Because Tenth Circuit caselaw foreclosing this argument survives New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 142 S.Ct. 2111 (2022), the Court will deny this motion.
I. Background
In 2007, Mr. Mann pled guilty of possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of crack cocaine, violating 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B); possessing a firearm while being an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance, violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3); and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug-trafficking crime, violating 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). See Compl. ¶ 5 (ECF No. 1); see also Plea Agreement ¶ 3, United States v. Mann, No. 07-cr-00385-LH (D.N.M. Nov. 1, 2007) (ECF No. 31).
In 2009, Mr. Mann pled guilty to trafficking a controlled substance by possessing cocaine with intent to distribute, violating N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-31-20(A)(3)(b) (2006). See ECF No. 1, ¶ 5; see also Guilty Plea, State v. Mann, No. D-202-cr-2007-01766 (2d Jud. Dist. Ct. July 6, 2009).
II. Analysis
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) prohibits anyone “who has been convicted in any court of[] a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” from “possess[ing] in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition.”
In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment confers an “individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008). Relevant here, Heller cautioned in dicta, “[N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons ....” Id. at 627.
The Tenth Circuit has held that Heller's dictum is binding and that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional. See United States v. McCane, 573 F.3d 1037, 1047 (10th Cir. 2009); accord United States v. Griffith, 928 F.3d 855, 871 (10th Cir. 2019); United States v. Molina, 484 Fed.Appx. 276, 285 (10th Cir. 2012); see also United States v. Gieswein, 887 F.3d 1054, 1064 n.6 (10th Cir. 2018) (noting that McCane foreclosed constitutional challenges to § 922(g)(1)); In re United States, 578 F.3d 1195, 1200 (10th Cir. 2009) (unpublished) (recognizing that Tenth Circuit has foreclosed as-applied challenges to § 922(g)(1)).
In New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, the Supreme Court clarified the standard for applying the Second Amendment and reviewing firearm regulations. See 142 S.Ct. 2111, 2129 (2022). First, a court should ask whether “the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct.” Id. at 2129-30. If so, then “the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct,” and “the government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Id. at 2130. The reviewing court will then uphold the regulation only if the government meets its burden. See id.
After Bruen, the Tenth Circuit's district courts disagreed about whether the Circuit's earlier decisions upholding § 922(g)(1) remained good law. Mr. Mann filed his motion in this context. But after Mr. Mann filed his motion, the Tenth Circuit clarified that its earlier decisions survived Bruen and continue to bind its district courts. See Vincent v. Garland, 80 F.4th 1197, 1202 (10th Cir. 2023). Thus, under McCane, Mr. Mann's challenge to § 922(g)(1) fails. See 573 F.3d at 1047.
III. Conclusion
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Mr. Mann's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 52) is DENIED.