Opinion
4:21-cr-00289-RK
07-28-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. BENJAMIN K STRIPLIN, Defendant.
ORDER
ROSEANN A. KETCHMARK, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
On April 25, 2023, Magistrate Judge Lajuana M. Counts issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 29), recommending that the Court deny Defendant Benjamin K. Striplin's motion to dismiss the indictment charging him with one count of being a drug user in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) (Doc. 18). Defendant filed an objection to the Report (Doc. 35), and both parties submitted additional briefing (Docs. 36, 40, 45). After an independent review of the matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court accepts the findings and recommendation by Magistrate Judge Counts in full.
As to Defendant Striplin's Second Amendment challenge to the indictment following New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S.Ct. 2111 (2022), following Magistrate Judge Counts' Report and Recommendation, the Eighth Circuit issued its opinion in United States v. Jackson, 69 F.4th 495 (8th Cir. 2023). In Jackson, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), prohibiting possession of firearms by convicted felons, in light of Bruen. In doing so, the Court recognized the relevant historical tradition of firearms regulation in the United States as including prohibiting “categories of persons [from possessing firearms] based on a conclusion that the category as a whole presented an unacceptable risk of danger if armed.” Id. at 504. And indeed, federal firearms regulation was animated by Congress's desire to restrict “categories of presumptively dangerous persons from transporting or receiving firearms . . . because they posed an unacceptable risk of dangerousness.” Id. at 505 (cleaned up). Ultimately, the Jackson Court held that § 922(g)(1)'s prohibition on firearm possession as to felons - as a category of “persons who deviate[] from legal norms or persons who present[] an unacceptable risk of dangerousness” - was consistent with the historical tradition of firearms regulation and did not violate the Second Amendment. Id. at 505.
While Jackson considered a different subsection of § 922(g) than is at issue here, the Court finds that the historical tradition recognized by the Eighth Circuit in Jackson compels the same conclusion here: § 922(g)(3) does not violate the Second Amendment inasmuch as it prohibits possession of firearms as to a category of persons who, at a minimum, “present[] an unacceptable risk of dangerousness.” Therefore, upon careful review and consideration, the Court ORDERS:
(1) the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Counts (Doc. 29) is ADOPTED;
(2) Defendant's objections (Doc. 35) are OVERRULED; and
(3) Defendant's motion to dismiss (Doc. 18) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.