Chew v. United States, 314 A.3d 80

Roderick Chew was convicted in the District of Columbia for three gun-related offenses: possession of an unregistered firearm (UF), carrying a pistol without a license (CPWL), and unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon (UP).
Chew did not raise constitutional challenges to the underlying statutes at trial, but argued on appeal that D.C.'s firearm registration and licensing laws are facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, especially after the Supreme Court's decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen.
He further argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove his possession of a firearm and that the convictions for UF and CPWL should merge with UP under double jeopardy principles.
The court reviewed the unpreserved constitutional claims for plain error.
DNA and eyewitness testimony linked Chew to the firearm, despite the presence of another person in the vehicle.

Issue	Chew's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Facial constitutionality of D.C. firearm registration statute	Statute's discretionary language violates Second Amendment	Chew waived claim by not raising at trial; not eligible anyway	No plain error; Chew can't challenge statute as ineligible felon
Facial constitutionality of D.C. firearms licensing statute	"May issue" language and "proper reason" requirements violate Second Amendment (post-Bruen)	Proper reason already enjoined and doesn't apply; Chew not eligible	No plain error; Chew can't mount facial challenge as ineligible
Sufficiency of the evidence for firearm possession	Testimony/evidence equally supports passenger possession	Eyewitness and DNA evidence sufficiently linked Chew to gun	Evidence sufficient for conviction
Merger of convictions under Double Jeopardy	UF and CPWL should merge with UP as same offense	Offenses have distinct elements, so separate convictions permissible	No merger; each offense requires proof of different element

Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (distinct statutory provisions do not merge if each requires proof of a unique element)
Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (facial overbreadth challenges generally disfavored outside First Amendment context)
New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (struck down New York's "proper cause" handgun licensing regime as unconstitutional)
Wrenn v. District of Columbia, 864 F.3d 650 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (permanently enjoined D.C.'s "proper reason" requirement for gun licenses)
Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (plain error review applies to unpreserved claims on direct appeal)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (explains distinction between waiver and forfeiture for appellate review)
Sabri v. United States, 541 U.S. 600 (standing to bring facial constitutional challenge narrow outside special contexts)