624 F.Supp.3d 636
S.D.W. Va2022Background:
- Defendant David Keith Nutter was indicted under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(9) and 924(a)(2) for possessing multiple firearms on or about July 6, 2019, after prior convictions for domestic-violence offenses (late 1990s and 2002).
- Law enforcement seized rifles, shotguns, muzzleloader pistols, and ammunition following interviews of minors who reported alcohol, reckless handling of firearms, and the Defendant’s intoxication.
- Nutter moved to dismiss on Second Amendment grounds after the Supreme Court issued New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, arguing §922(g)(9) lacks a founding-era analogue and therefore is unconstitutional.
- The United States argued Bruen’s historical-tradition test permits disarming classes judged dangerous (e.g., felons, domestic abusers) and that §922(g)(9) fits within that tradition and public-safety purposes.
- The Court denied the Bruen-based motion to dismiss, granted the Government leave to file supplemental authority, struck the Defendant’s untimely further reply, and denied withdrawal of the guilty plea.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §922(g)(9) (bar on firearm possession by persons convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence) violates the Second Amendment under Bruen | §922(g)(9) is consistent with historical tradition of disarming classes deemed dangerous; Bruen allows prohibitions on dangerous persons | No clear founding-era analogue; domestic-violence misdemeanants were not historically disarmed, so modern prohibition is inconsistent with Bruen | Motion to dismiss denied; court finds prohibition consistent with historical tradition of disarming dangerous persons and with Bruen’s framework |
| Motion for leave to file supplemental authority by the United States | Supplemental authority is relevant and should be considered | (N/A) | Granted |
| Defendant’s untimely additional reply brief (supplemental reply) | N/A | Sought to file extended further reply to address new authority and history | Stricken for noncompliance with briefing deadlines |
| Motion to withdraw guilty plea | N/A | Requested withdrawal if dismissal were warranted post-Bruen | Denied (no basis because dismissal was denied) |
Key Cases Cited:
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022) (establishes historical-tradition test for firearm regulations)
- D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognizes individual right to possess firearms for self-defense and identifies certain ‘‘presumptively lawful’’ prohibitions)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (incorporation of Second Amendment against the states and reiteration of Heller dicta)
- United States v. Chester, 628 F.3d 673 (4th Cir. 2010) (Fourth Circuit precedent addressing Second Amendment challenges to federal firearm prohibitions)
- United States v. Staten, 666 F.3d 154 (4th Cir. 2011) (discusses legislative purpose and empirical support for §922(g)(9))
- Kanter v. Barr, 919 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2019) (dissent and analysis recognizing historical practice of disarming groups judged dangerous)