Headspeth v. District of Columbia, 2012 D.C. App. LEXIS 295

Appellant Billy Headspeth was convicted by a jury of two counts of possession of an unregistered firearm and two counts of unlawful possession of ammunition.
Policemen executing a search warrant on June 20, 2007 found two handguns in Headspeth’s bedroom dresser; he was eighteen at the time.
Headspeth moved to dismiss the charges based on the Second Amendment, relying on Heller’s framework.
The trial court denied the motion, holding the age-based registration restriction reasonable and that Headspeth could not complain because he did not register.
The court issued an order remanding for an evidentiary hearing to determine if Headspeth could have satisfied registration requirements for his age under § 7-2502.03(a).
The opinion also addresses whether merger requires vacating one UF and one UA conviction if Headspeth could not qualify for registration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the case should be remanded for an evidentiary hearing on registration eligibility.	Headspeth seeks remand to develop whether he could have met § 7-2502.03(a) requirements.	The District argues remand is futile or unnecessary absent plain-error sufficiency.	Remand for an evidentiary hearing is ordered.
What Headspeth must prove to qualify under the § 7-2502.03(a) exception for registration.	Headspeth would prove eligibility via notarized parent/guardian permission and liability.	Headspeth must show, prior to charges, he could have obtained notarized parental permission and liability.	Headspeth must prove he could have obtained the authorized notarized parental documentation.
Whether (if not eligible) one UF and one UA conviction must be vacated due to merger principles.	Cormier v. United States supports more than one conviction; merger should apply to limit convictions.	District agrees merger applies; may vacate one UF and one UA.	Court will vacate one UF and one UA conviction if Headspeth could not qualify for registration.
Whether the court should adopt plain-error review or rely on remand approach.	Headspeth anticipated remand following Plummer; seeks correct application of standing.	Remand is appropriate to resolve eligibility issues raised by Plummer.	The opinion effectively adopts remand to resolve eligibility issues rather than deciding plain-error on record.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (second amendment protects an individual right to bear arms and informs analysis of registration limits)
Plummer v. United States, 983 A.2d 328 (D.C. 2009) (standing to raise Second Amendment challenge via dismissal and remand for eligibility findings)
Plummer v. United States, 2010 D.C. App. LEXIS 785 (D.C. May 20, 2010) (amended opinion detailing remand procedures for eligibility determinations)
Logan v. United States, 489 A.2d 485 (D.C.1985) (statutory interpretation of exceptions to general prohibitions in firearm registration)
Jacobs v. United States, 436 A.2d 1286 (D.C.1981) (where a defendant claims a statutory exception, the defense must show it)
Vincent v. United States, 58 A.2d 829 (D.C.1948) (defense to exception to a statute is the defendant’s burden)
Porter v. United States, 37 A.3d 251 (D.C.2012) (remand for evidentiary hearing on a search-related issue rather than harmless-error ruling)
Cormier v. United States, 137 A.2d 212 (D.C.1957) (merger considerations for multiple firearms under related statutes)
Herrington v. United States, 6 A.3d 1237 (D.C.2010) (Second Amendment extends to possession of ammunition in the home)