United States v. Booker
644 F.3d 12
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- Booker and Wyman were convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) based on Maine's simple assault statute.
- Maine's simple assault statute can be violated by intentional, knowing, or reckless conduct.
- Lautenberg Amendment created § 922(g)(9) to bar firearm possession by misdemeanor domestic violence offenders.
- Appellants argued Maine's recklessness variant cannot support a § 922(g)(9) predicate and challenged constitutionality.
- District court denied motions; the appeals were consolidated for this First Circuit decision.
- Court reaffirmed that § 922(g)(9) targets a substantial domestic-violence gun-risk objective and is constitutional.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether recklessness suffices as mens rea for § 922(g)(9). | Booker/Wyman: only intentional offenses qualify. | Booker/Wyman: statute requires intent due to 'use' language and related analogies. | No; recklessness may satisfy § 922(g)(9). |
| Whether § 922(g)(9) violates the Second Amendment. | Booker/Wyman: law abridges the right to bear arms. | Government: law falls within presumptively lawful regulatory measures with substantial government interest. | No constitutional problem; statute passes appropriate scrutiny. |
Key Cases Cited
- Meade, 175 F.3d 215 (1st Cir. 1999) (interpretation of 'misdemeanor crime of domestic violence' without required relationship element)
- Nason, 269 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2001) (physical force language broad enough to include 'offensive physical contact')
- Johnson v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 1265 (2010) (limits of 'physical force' in ACCA context; not controlling for § 922(g)(9))
- Hayes, 129 S. Ct. 1079 (2009) (definition of 'misdemeanor crime of domestic violence' linked to 'physical force' language)
- Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) (interpretation of 'use of physical force' requiring more than mere negligence in § 16 context)
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (2008) (discusses mens rea in ACCA residual clause; not controlling for § 922(g)(9) force clause)
- Skoien, 614 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2010) (upholds presumptively lawful regulatory measures and 'strong showing' standard)
- Rene E., 583 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2009) (historical context for firearm restrictions and juveniles)
- US v. Hartsock, 347 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2003) (discussed in Lautenberg context and prior gun-ownership restraints)