659 F.Supp.3d 683
W.D.N.C.2023Background
- On April 7, 2020, officers executing a search warrant related to a domestic incident found an altered short-barreled shotgun (Stevens model 94; overall ~19 3/4", 13" barrel) and an improvised silencer in Saleem’s residence/vehicles; both lacked serial numbers and were unregistered under the NFA.
- Saleem pled guilty on October 22, 2021 to Counts One and Two charging possession of an unregistered short-barreled shotgun and an unregistered silencer under 26 U.S.C. §§ 5845, 5861(d), 5871 and related 18 U.S.C. definitions.
- On October 17, 2022 Saleem moved to dismiss those counts under the Second Amendment in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (Bruen), arguing the NFA’s regulation is unconstitutional as applied to short-barreled shotguns and silencers.
- The Government argued Bruen did not disturb Supreme Court precedent excluding short-barreled shotguns from Second Amendment protection, that silencers are accessories not protected as "arms," and that the NFA’s registration/tax scheme is lawful.
- The Court found Saleem’s post-plea Bruen challenge timely (good cause) because Bruen changed the analytic framework, addressed the two core questions under Bruen, and denied the motion as to both counts.
Issues
| Issue | Government's Argument | Saleem's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of post-plea Bruen challenge | Motion untimely because raised after plea; pretrial rule requires earlier challenge | Bruen announced a new standard; good cause exists to consider the challenge post-plea | Court found good cause and considered the motion on the merits |
| Whether short-barreled shotguns are protected "arms" | Miller and Heller hold short-barreled shotguns are not protected; thus NFA regulation is constitutional | Short-barreled shotguns are within "arms" (blunderbuss analog) and/or in common use, so NFA regulation burdens protected conduct | Court held short-barreled shotguns are not protected (dangerous/unusual per Miller/Heller); denied dismissal of Count One |
| Whether silencers are protected "arms" or necessary accoutrements | Silencers are accessories, not "bearable arms," may be dangerous/unusual, and NFA registration is historically analogous and permissible | Silencers are instruments that render firearms more usable (hearing protection); thus they are protected as arms or necessary accoutrements | Court held silencers are not "arms," not necessary accoutrements, and can be "dangerous and unusual;" denied dismissal of Count Two |
Key Cases Cited
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (U.S. 2022) (adopted text-and-history test and rejected means-end scrutiny for Second Amendment claims)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (recognized an individual right to possess arms for self-defense but limited to certain weapons)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (U.S. 2010) (incorporated Second Amendment against the states)
- United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (U.S. 1939) (short-barreled shotguns not protected where unrelated to militia service)
- Konigsberg v. State Bar of California, 366 U.S. 36 (U.S. 1961) (noted for the principle that certain constitutional rights constrain governmental discretion)