United States v. Chapman
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 57
| 4th Cir. | 2012Background
- Chapman was indicted on one count of knowingly possessing six firearms and 991 cartridges while subject to a DVPO, in violation of §922(g)(8) and §924(a)(2).
- The DVPO at issue protected a woman Chapman had been in a relationship with, was effective Nov 3, 2009 to May 3, 2010, and prohibited Chapman from possessing firearms while in effect.
- The DVPO issued after a hearing with Chapman notice and opportunity to participate; it restrained Chapman from harassing or threatening the intimate partner or others and found Chapman a credible threat.
- Chapman pleaded guilty to §922(g)(8) and §924(a)(2) in a single-count indictment under a plea agreement reserving his right to appeal the district court’s denial of dismissal based on an as-applied Second Amendment challenge.
- The district court denied the challenge; Chapman was sentenced to time served and two years of supervised release; he timely appealed to the Fourth Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §922(g)(8) as applied burdens Second Amendment rights | Chapman’s position: burden falls within core Second Amendment protection | Government argues burden falls outside core right and is justified | Yes, intermediate scrutiny applies and §922(g)(8)(A)-(B) and (C)(ii) survive. |
| What level of scrutiny governs the as-applied challenge | Chapman contends strict scrutiny is required | Government contends intermediate scrutiny suffices | Intermediate scrutiny is the applicable standard. |
| Whether there is a reasonable fit between §922(g)(8) A–B and C(ii) and the objective of reducing domestic gun violence | Chapman argues the fit is too attenuated; burden too broad | Government shows narrow sweep and empirical support | §922(g)(8)(A)-(B) and (C)(ii) have a reasonable fit; statute upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Chester, 628 F.3d 673 (4th Cir. 2010) (two-part approach: burden on conduct and then form of scrutiny; intermediate scrutiny applied to § 922(g)(8))
- United States v. Staten, 666 F.3d 154 (4th Cir. 2011) (applies two-part framework; supports intermediate scrutiny for § 922(g)(8))
- United States v. Reese, 627 F.3d 792 (10th Cir. 2010) (intermediate scrutiny upheld for § 922(g)(8) like § 922(g)(9) analysis)
- United States v. Vann, 660 F.3d 771 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc per curiam; discusses conjunctive charging and least serious disjunctive conduct; relevance to § 922(g)(8)(C) analysis)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognizes individual right to keep and bear arms in home for self-defense)