United States v. Potter
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1564
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Potter was convicted of possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A).
- Potter challenged § 924(c)(1)(A) as unconstitutional on its face and as applied under the Second Amendment.
- The panel reviews de novo under United States v. Vongxay.
- Potter contends the Second Amendment protects a home defense right that would render § 924(c) unconstitutional.
- The government argues the Second Amendment does not authorise use of firearms to further illegal drug activity.
- The court affirmatively holds § 924(c) constitutional and rejects Potter’s defense instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is § 924(c)(1)(A) constitutional under the Second Amendment? | Potter | Potter | Constitutional |
| Did the district court err in refusing a self-defense/defense-of-others instruction tied to the Second Amendment? | Potter | Potter | District court did not err |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognizes a personal right to keep and bear arms but limits it to lawful purposes)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010) (plurality; Second Amendment protects a fundamental right applicable to states)
- United States v. Jackson, 555 F.3d 635 (7th Cir. 2009) (upholds § 924(c) constitutionality under the Second Amendment)
- United States v. Vongxay, 594 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2010) (de novo review; upholds § 922(g)(1) as constitutional)
- United States v. Morsette, 622 F.3d 1200 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam; confirms that Heller/McDonald do not require altering self-defense jury instruction)