United States v. Carter
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1243
| 4th Cir. | 2012Background
- Police found marijuana and firearms in Carter's apartment after investigating suspected drug activity.
- Carter admitted 15 years of marijuana use at arrest.
- Carter was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) and entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving a Second Amendment appeal.
- District court denied dismissal/motion on § 922(g)(3) as constitutional, and Carter received probation.
- Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded to develop a record showing a reasonable fit between § 922(g)(3) and its objective to reduce gun violence.
- At issue is whether § 922(g)(3) burdens the Second Amendment and, if so, what level of scrutiny applies and whether the record supports the fit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 922(g)(3) is constitutional under the Second Amendment. | Carter argues strict scrutiny should apply given core home-defense right. | Government argues no Second Amendment protection or only intermediate scrutiny. | Remanded; burden to show fit lacking, not resolved on the merits. |
| What standard of scrutiny applies to Carter’s challenge. | Carter contends strict scrutiny for core right in the home. | Government argues intermediate scrutiny or no protection. | Intermediate scrutiny applied; remand to develop record for fit. |
| Whether there is a substantial fit between § 922(g)(3) and preventing gun violence. | Record lacks empirical support; over-/under-inclusive harms. | § 922(g)(3) serves important public-safety objective. | Remand to develop record; evidence insufficient as to fit. |
| Whether the government must rely on empirical data to justify the fit. | Record cannot be based on anecdote; need data. | Record may rely on history, common sense, and plausible justification. | Remanded to allow government to supply supporting record. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Chester, 628 F.3d 673 (4th Cir.2010) (two-step approach; determine scope and apply means-end scrutiny; intermediate scrutiny if burdened)
- Heller v. District of Columbia, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (self-defense central to right; home focus; presumptively lawful measures listed; not unlimited)
- Masciandaro v. Masciandaro, 638 F.3d 458 (4th Cir.2011) (assumed rights; intermediate scrutiny applied; public safety interest recognized)
- United States v. Staten, 666 F.3d 154 (4th Cir.2011) (assumed Second Amendment rights; rejected challenge under intermediate scrutiny)
- United States v. Dugan, 657 F.3d 998 (9th Cir.2011) (upheld § 922(g)(3) under intermediate scrutiny with record development)