United States v. David Nutter, 137 F.4th 224

David Nutter was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), which bars individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence from possessing firearms.
Nutter had three Ohio convictions qualifying as predicate offenses under the statute.
He moved to dismiss the indictment on constitutional grounds, arguing the statute violates the Second Amendment, especially after the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision.
The district court rejected his motions; Nutter entered a conditional plea, preserving his right to appeal the denial.
The Fourth Circuit reviewed his facial challenge (not as-applied), considering recent Supreme Court and Circuit authority.

Issue	Nutter's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Is § 922(g)(9) facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment post-Bruen?	No historical tradition supports permanent disarmament of misdemeanor domestic violence offenders; statute is overbroad, not all convictions justify a lifetime firearm ban.	The statute is supported by a tradition of disarming those found dangerous to public safety; Rahimi and analogues justify § 922(g)(9)'s restrictions.	Statute is facially constitutional; there are circumstances where its application is valid, so it survives a facial challenge.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (landmark Second Amendment case establishing individual right to possess firearms)
New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (established history-and-tradition test for Second Amendment challenges)
United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (upheld similar federal gun prohibition for those subject to domestic violence restraining orders)
United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (facial challenge standard: no set of circumstances where statute is valid)
Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442 (reiterates the high bar for facial constitutional challenges)