123 F.4th 697
4th Cir.2024Background
- Matthew Hunt was convicted of a felony (breaking and entering) in West Virginia in 2017 and later charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for being a felon in possession of a firearm.
- Hunt pleaded guilty but on appeal argued that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment, both facially and as-applied to him.
- The legal landscape shifted with Supreme Court decisions in Bruen and Rahimi, raising questions about the continued validity of felony firearm bans under the Second Amendment.
- The district court applied an enhanced sentence after finding that Hunt fired a gun during a domestic incident, constituting "wanton endangerment" under West Virginia law.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed constitutionality de novo, assumed for argument’s sake that plain error did not apply, and considered both circuit and Supreme Court precedents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Facial constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) after Bruen | Ban violates the Second Amendment, facially | Law is constitutional under existing precedent | Bound by precedent; law remains facially constitutional |
| As-applied constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) | Ban violates Second Amendment as applied to Hunt | Precedent bars as-applied challenge absent pardon or invalid law | Precedent forecloses as-applied challenge to felons |
| Standard of review for unraised constitutional claim | Class permits review, so plain error doesn't apply | Forfeiture triggers plain-error review | Reviewed de novo for prudence; result unaffected |
| Sentencing enhancement for firing gun | Insufficient evidence Hunt fired gun | Evidence supports finding that Hunt fired gun | District court did not clearly err; enhancement upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognized Second Amendment protects law-abiding citizens, restrictions on felons are "presumptively lawful")
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (incorporated Second Amendment, reiterated Heller’s carve-out for felons)
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) (clarified Second Amendment framework, but did not address felon dispossession)
- United States v. Rahimi, 144 S. Ct. 1889 (2024) (reaffirmed "presumptively lawful" status of felon ban)
- United States v. Moore, 666 F.3d 313 (4th Cir. 2012) (rejected as-applied challenge to § 922(g)(1); interprets Heller)
- United States v. Hamilton, 848 F.3d 614 (4th Cir. 2017) (only pardon or finding statute unlawful can restore felon’s gun rights)
- United States v. Pruess, 703 F.3d 242 (4th Cir. 2012) (Second Amendment doesn’t protect non-law-abiding felons)