United States v. Samuel Hosford, 843 F.3d 161

Background

Samuel Hosford sold firearms to an undercover officer in a parking lot on five occasions over ~2.5 months; he purchased the guns hours earlier and made no background checks or records. He was indicted for conspiracy and five counts of unlicensed dealing in firearms under 18 U.S.C. §§ 921, 922.
The statute prohibits unlicensed persons from "engag[ing] in the business" of dealing firearms (regular purchase/resale for profit) and exempts occasional sales or sales from a personal collection; licensing requires application, age, fee, and lawful premises.
Hosford moved to dismiss the indictment on constitutional grounds: (1) Second Amendment (facial and as-applied), (2) Fifth Amendment vagueness (facial and as-applied), and (3) lack of Commerce Clause authority.
The district court denied the motion; Hosford entered a conditional guilty plea preserving appeal on constitutionality. The Fourth Circuit heard de novo legal issues and reviewed factual findings for clear error.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed: the dealer-licensing prohibition is a longstanding, presumptively lawful regulation under Heller; it satisfies intermediate scrutiny as applied; it is not unconstitutionally vague as applied (nor facially); and it is a valid exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause power.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Second Amendment — facial challenge to unlicensed-dealing prohibition	Statute prevents non-prohibited persons from privately selling intrastate firearms; facially invalid under the Second Amendment	The dealer-licensing rule is a condition on commercial sales, longstanding and "presumptively lawful" after Heller	Rejected — statute is longstanding condition/qualification on commercial sale and facially constitutional
Second Amendment — as-applied challenge	Applying the statute to Hosford burdens protected conduct (private sales) and should trigger heightened scrutiny	Even if it burdens protected conduct, it does not reach core Second Amendment rights (home self-defense); only intermediate scrutiny applies and is satisfied	Rejected — intermediate scrutiny applies and statute reasonably fits substantial public-safety objectives
Fifth Amendment void-for-vagueness (facial and as-applied)	Statute is unclear who is a "dealer" vs. "collector" and when sales are profit-driven vs. hobby; may chill protected activity	The statute, especially post-1986 definitions, gives ordinary people fair notice; Hosford's conduct clearly proscribed (commercial resale)	Rejected — not vague as applied to Hosford; facial challenge fails absent First Amendment overbreadth claim
Commerce Clause authority	Intrastate private sales are beyond Congress’s commerce power	Unlicensed commercial dealing affects interstate firearms market (fungible commodity); Congress rationally could conclude intrastate sales substantially affect interstate commerce	Rejected — statute is a valid exercise of Commerce Clause power

Key Cases Cited

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (recognition of individual right to possess arms; listed "presumptively lawful" regulations)
Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (federal regulation of intrastate activity that substantially affects interstate market)
Salerno v. United States, 481 U.S. 739 (standard for facial constitutional challenges)
Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (void-for-vagueness doctrine)
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (limitations on vagueness challenges when conduct is clearly proscribed)
United States v. Chester, 628 F.3d 673 (Fourth Circuit two-step Second Amendment analysis)
United States v. Moore, 666 F.3d 313 (upholding presumptively lawful prohibitions as facially constitutional)
United States v. Masciandaro, 638 F.3d 458 (distinguishing core vs. non-core Second Amendment conduct; scrutiny levels)
Woollard v. Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865 (intermediate scrutiny in firearm regulation context)
United States v. Huffman, 518 F.2d 80 (4th Cir. 1975) (upholding pre-1986, less specific dealer statute against vagueness challenge)