United States v. Lahey
967 F. Supp. 2d 731
S.D.N.Y.2013Background
- ATF conducted an 18‑month undercover investigation of Pagans Outlaw Motorcycle Club; undercover agent infiltrated and reported members used, distributed, and guarded narcotics meetings.
- Government charged five defendants, including Ezra Davis III and Walter Tarrats (the Moving Defendants), in an 11‑count superseding indictment; Count Eleven charged violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(h) (the "Bodyguard Statute") for knowingly possessing a firearm while "employed for" prohibited persons (felons/drug users) on May 22, 2010.
- Allegations: at a Pagans gathering at Tracy Lahey’s property, defendants performed armed guard duty on behalf of Pagans officers and knowingly possessed a Hi‑Point 9mm rifle while on duty.
- Moving Defendants moved to dismiss Count Eleven on statutory and constitutional grounds: they argued § 922(h) requires compensated employment; alternatively that the statute is unconstitutionally vague, infringes First Amendment association rights, and (for Davis) burdens Second Amendment rights.
- The Court accepted indictment allegations as true for the motion and considered statutory language, legislative purpose, and precedent in denying the motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statutory scope of "employed for" under § 922(h) | Gov't: § 922(h) reaches individuals used as agents/substitutes for prohibited persons; no compensation required | Davis/Tarrats: "Employed for" requires a demonstrable employer‑employee relationship with tangible compensation; indictment insufficient | Court: "employed for" does not require pay; covers agents/substitutes; gov't must prove defendants were used as agents in course of employment |
| Vagueness / Due Process | Gov't: statute provides adequate notice and scienter; application here is core prohibited conduct | Defs: without compensation element statute is vague and allows arbitrary enforcement | Court: as‑applied challenge fails — statutory terms (receive/possess/transport; knowledge) give fair notice; defendants’ alleged conduct falls within statute’s core; no arbitrary enforcement shown |
| First Amendment — Freedom of Association | Gov't: § 922(h) targets employment/agency conduct, not mere association | Davis: statute penalizes association because one cannot know membership will create criminal exposure; statute lacks requirement that defendant know he is being used | Court: knowledge requirement interpreted to require defendant know employer is a prohibited person and that he is possessing a firearm in course of employment; statute does not punish mere association and is not overbroad |
| Second Amendment — Right to Bear Arms | Gov't: § 922(h) is tailored to prevent felons from circumventing § 922(g) via proxies; substantial governmental interest in public safety | Davis: statute may chill lawful carrying where others (prohibited persons) could use the firearm; burdens self‑defense | Court: application here does not substantially burden core self‑defense right; even if heightened scrutiny applied, intermediate scrutiny satisfied — statute reasonably furthers important interest in disarming dangerous persons |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Weaver, 659 F.3d 353 (4th Cir. 2011) (analyzing § 922(h) scope and rejecting a strict compensation requirement)
- Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010) (distinguishing vagueness and overbreadth; holding plaintiffs whose conduct is clearly proscribed cannot succeed on facial vagueness claim)
- Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010) (due process vagueness standards for criminal statutes)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (Second Amendment protects individual right to possess firearms for self‑defense, but right is not unlimited)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (Second Amendment applies to the states; reaffirming Heller’s limits)
- Flores‑Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646 (2009) (interpretation of "knowingly" scienter applying to statutory elements)
- Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994) (mens rea: when regulated item is common and lawful, higher scienter may be required)
- X‑Citement Video, Inc. v. United States, 513 U.S. 64 (1994) (reading scienter across statutory elements)
- United States v. Farhane, 634 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2011) (First Amendment overbreadth and vagueness analysis; statutes not penalizing mere association survive)
- Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2012) (Second Amendment intermediate scrutiny framework for regulations outside home)
- United States v. DeCastro, 682 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2012) (analysis of "substantial burden" and as‑applied vs facial challenges under Second Amendment)
- United States v. Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85 (3d Cir. 2010) (firearms statutes as part of broad regulatory scheme to keep guns from dangerous persons)