United States v. Daniel Chovan
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 23199
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Chovan was convicted in California in 1996 of misdemeanor domestic violence (Penal Code § 273.5(a)).
- Under California law, he faced a 10-year state ban on firearms; federal § 922(g)(9) imposes a lifetime ban for DV misdemeanants.
- In 2009 Chovan attempted to buy a firearm; background check denied due to the 1996 DV conviction, though state law allowed possession at that time.
- FBI/ATF investigation uncovered online videos of gun use and a 2010 domestic dispute in which Fix (his ex-wife) reported violence and threats.
- April 2010 search of Chovan’s home uncovered four firearms; he admitted possession and firing since 1996; two-count indictment: § 922(g)(9) and § 924(a)(1)(A).
- Chovan pled guilty to Count One under a conditional plea preserving appeal rights; district court denied his motion to dismiss; the Ninth Circuit reviews de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Civil rights restoration exception scope | Chovan: restoration under § 921(a)(33)(B)(ii) bars § 922(g)(9). | Chovan: restoration did apply because core civil rights not lost. | Restoration not met; exception does not apply. |
| Appropriate level of scrutiny for § 922(g)(9) | Chovan: strict scrutiny should apply, given core Second Amendment concerns. | Government seeks some intermediate or heightened scrutiny. | Intermediate scrutiny applies. |
| Face validity of § 922(g)(9) under intermediate scrutiny | Chovan: statute burdens core rights and is not narrowly tailored. | Statute advances important objective and is substantially related. | Statute survives intermediate scrutiny on facial challenge. |
| As-applied challenge to Chovan | Fifteen-year gap since 1996 DV conviction; low recidivism; extrapolate low risk. | Recidivism data supports substantial relation to preventing domestic gun violence. | As applied, § 922(g)(9) remains substantially related; falls within intermediate scrutiny. |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (recognized individual right to keep and bear arms with limits; core vs. non-core rights)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (U.S. 2010) (incorporation of Second Amendment against states)
- United States v. Chester, 628 F.3d 673 (4th Cir. 2010) (two-step framework; intermediate scrutiny for DV misdemeanants' rights)
- United States v. Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85 (3d Cir. 2010) (two-step inquiry informing Second Amendment scrutiny level)
- United States v. Skoien, 614 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2010) (upheld § 922(g)(9) under intermediate scrutiny with social science support)
- United States v. Booker, 644 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2011) (upholding § 922(g)(9) under intermediate scrutiny)
- United States v. Staten, 666 F.3d 154 (4th Cir. 2011) (upheld § 922(g)(9) on intermediate scrutiny with full record)
- Hayes v. United States, 555 U.S. 415 (U.S. 2009) (legislative history informing purpose behind § 922(g)(9))