United States v. Deryke
1:23-cr-00092
W.D. Mich.Oct 27, 2023Background
- Defendant Eric Nathan Deryke was federally indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for possession of a firearm after multiple prior felony convictions.
- Predicate convictions listed in the PSR include: carrying a dangerous weapon (2008), attempted felonious assault (2010), carrying a concealed weapon (2015), and police-officer assault/resist and switchblade possession (2017).
- The firearm-possession charge arises from an April 16, 2022 shooting in a bar parking lot: Deryke allegedly exchanged gunfire with another person, was wounded, tossed his gun from a vehicle, and DNA on the gun plus witness IDs tied him to the weapon.
- Deryke moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment framework announced in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen.
- The Government opposed, arguing Bruen’s test does not protect non–law-abiding persons like felons and that historical analogues support felon-disarmament laws.
- The district court denied the motion, holding Bruen did not undercut Heller/McDonald dicta that felon bans are presumptively lawful and that the Government met its historical-tradition burden.
Issues
| Issue | United States' Argument | Deryke's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Second Amendment plain text covers felons | Bruen protects ‘law‑abiding’ individuals; Heller/McDonald preserved felon bans, so felons are not within the protected class | "The people" includes felons; §922(g)(1) is presumptively unconstitutional absent a historical analogue | Court: Felons are not the class Bruen protects; Heller/McDonald dicta control; motion denied |
| Whether Bruen’s historical‑tradition test invalidates §922(g)(1) | Bruen’s historical test applies but is satisfied because felon‑disarmament has historical analogues | Bruen requires historical analogues and the Government cannot show a relevant tradition for lifetime felon disarmament | Court: Even applying Bruen, the Government met its burden; statute consistent with historical tradition |
| Whether historical analogues exist for disarming felons | Points to English and colonial laws disarming disloyal or dangerous groups, founding‑era felony punishments, and ratification‑era materials as relevantly similar | Argues historical laws are not sufficiently analogous to modern lifetime disarmament for felons | Court: Historical regulations are "relevantly similar" in purpose and burden; supports §922(g)(1) |
| Weight of contrary appellate authority (Range) | Range is non‑binding, misreads Bruen, and imposes an overly strict analogue requirement | Cites Range as persuasive authority invalidating §922(g)(1) as applied | Court: Declines to follow Range; aligns with majority of post‑Bruen courts upholding §922(g)(1) |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (individual right to possess firearms; noted that bans on felons are presumptively lawful)
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (establishes plain‑text plus historical‑tradition test for Second Amendment challenges)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (applies Heller framework to the states; reiterates that felon prohibitions were not cast into doubt)
- Tyler v. Hillsdale Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 837 F.3d 678 (6th Cir.) (discusses pre‑Bruen two‑step framework and limits on the right)
- Range v. Att'y Gen., 69 F.4th 96 (3d Cir.) (en banc decision holding §922(g)(1) unconstitutional as applied; cited and distinguished by the district court)