United States v. Armstrong
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 1350
| 1st Cir. | 2013Background
- Armstrong charged with one count of unlawful firearm possession under §922(g)(9) after a Maine domestic-violence misdemeanor conviction.
- Predicate offense listed: 2008 Maine simple assault (domestic violence) against his wife; he also had prior simple assaults in 1992 and 2002.
- 2008 arrest followed a domestic incident where Armstrong allegedly injuriously or offensively touched his wife; conviction under Maine Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A §207-A(1)(A).
- ATF and Maine police recovered firearms and ammunition at Armstrong’s residence during and after investigations; ultimately firearms were seized and later aligned with the federal predicate.
- District court denied the motion to dismiss; Armstrong pled guilty conditioned on appeal; sentence included three years of probation, a $2,500 fine, and a $100 special assessment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the predicate can be a non-violent offense | Armstrong contends the offense is non-violent battery and cannot be a §922(g)(9) predicate. | Armstrong argues the Maine offense is non-violent and should not qualify under §921(a)(33)(A) and §922(g)(9). | No; the offense fits the broader ‘misdemeanor crime of domestic violence’ definition and qualifies. |
| Whether applying §922(g)(9) to this conviction violates the Second Amendment | Armstrong asserts as-applied challenge to §922(g)(9) fails under prior facial challenges. | Court should reject as-applied challenge; statute serves important government interest in preventing domestic gun violence. | §922(g)(9) persists; as applied to Armstrong, it withstands review. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Booker, 644 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2011) (redefines predicate-violation scope under Lautenberg Amendment; recklessness allowed; informs §922(g)(9) interpretation)
- United States v. Nason, 269 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2001) (interprets ‘offensive physical contact’ under Maine’s simple assault as within ‘physical force’)
- United States v. Meade, 175 F.3d 215 (1st Cir. 1999) (establishes unambiguous meaning of ‘misdemeanor crime of domestic violence’)
- United States v. Delis, 558 F.3d 177 (2nd Cir. 2009) (recognizes inclusion of common-law batteries in §921(a)(33) definitions)
- United States v. Guilbert, 692 F.2d 1340 (11th Cir. 1982) (cites supporting view of domestic-violence offenses within predicate definitions)
- Johnson v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 1265 (2010) (Supreme Court on physical force interpretation context; non-decisive for §922(g)(9) applicability here)
- United States v. Hayes, 555 U.S. 415 (2009) (informs relationship between gun possession and domestic violence)