United States v. Harbin
5:24-cr-00305
W.D. Tex.Jan 9, 2025Background
- Defendant Kenneth Austin Harbin was indicted on three counts: possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine (21 U.S.C. § 841), felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)).
- Law enforcement found methamphetamine, firearms, and related paraphernalia during a search of Harbin’s apartment.
- The felony conviction underlying Harbin's § 922(g)(1) charge was a 2012 aggravated robbery involving theft of a vehicle at gunpoint.
- Harbin filed a motion to dismiss counts two and three, arguing they are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment (as interpreted by Bruen) and that § 922(g)(1) also violates the Commerce Clause.
- The court ruled on the motion prior to trial, denying most claims based on controlling Fifth Circuit precedent, and deferred ruling on the as-applied § 924(c) challenge until relevant facts are established at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) (as applied) | Law matches Founding-era tradition, is consistent | No historical tradition of disarming similar felons | Statute is constitutional as applied |
| Constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) (facial) | Statute valid in at least some circumstances | Statute invalid under all circumstances | Facial challenge denied |
| Commerce Clause & § 922(g)(1) | Existing precedent upholds law under Commerce Clause | Statute exceeds Congress’s authority | Challenge rejected |
| Constitutionality of § 924(c) (facial) | Not covered by Second Amendment/self-defense | Statute infringes on Second Amendment rights | Facial challenge denied |
| Constitutionality of § 924(c) (as applied) | Evaluation requires fact-specific inquiry at trial | As applied to Harbin, statute is unconstitutional | Ruling deferred until trial |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143 (5th Cir. 2013) (rejects Commerce Clause challenges to § 922(g)(1)).
- United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458 (5th Cir. 2024) (analyzes § 922(g)(1) Second Amendment challenges under Bruen).
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (explains the standard for facial challenges to statutes).
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognizes Second Amendment right as focused on self-defense, not all uses of firearms).
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022) (establishes current Second Amendment standard for evaluating gun regulations).