United States v. Carter
1:22-cr-00374
| M.D. Penn. | Jun 30, 2025Background
- Defendant Terrell Carter was charged with possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) after a traffic stop where drugs and a loaded firearm were discovered.
- Carter had previous Pennsylvania convictions for drug trafficking and firearm offenses, including three prior felony drug charges and two convictions for firearm possession without a license.
- Carter moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that § 922(g)(1) violated his Second Amendment rights as applied to him since his prior convictions were non-violent.
- The case's resolution was initially stayed awaiting relevant appellate guidance from the Third Circuit, and subsequent supplemental briefing addressed new precedent from several recent cases.
- The government argued Carter's criminal history showed dangerousness justifying disarmament, while Carter maintained that permanent disarmament for non-violent felonies lacks historical support.
- The court ultimately denied Carter's motion to dismiss, finding his recidivist felony record showed a special danger that justified disarmament under the Second Amendment framework.
Issues
| Issue | Carter's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) as Applied | Law permanently disarming for non-violent felonies violates Second Amendment | Section supported by historical tradition; Carter is dangerous | Application of § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as Carter is dangerous |
| Requirement to State Lawful Purpose for Firearm Possession | No need to state lawful purpose (not in statute or Range II) | Must show firearm was possessed for a lawful use (e.g., self-defense) | No requirement to state purpose; issue fails at other step |
| Whether History Supports Permanent Disarmament for Nonviolent Felonies | No tradition of disarming non-violent felons like Carter | Drug/firearm crimes are dangerous and merit disarmament | Carter’s record (drug, firearm crimes) shows dangerousness; disarmament upheld |
| Scope of Dangerousness Analysis | Only predicate, nonviolent felonies should be considered | Consider entire criminal record, ongoing conduct | Entire record considered; Carter is dangerous; disarmament justified |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (recognized individual right to possess firearms for self-defense)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (incorporated Second Amendment against states)
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (set two-step test for Second Amendment challenges)
- United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (confirmed disarmament of those posing physical danger to others fits tradition)
- Range v. Attorney General, 124 F.4th 218 (3d Cir. 2024) (section 922(g)(1) unconstitutional as applied to one with non-violent, dated fraud conviction)
- United States v. Moore, 111 F.4th 266 (3d Cir. 2024) (Second Amendment rights do not extend to those on supervised release)