Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee at Memphis.
No. 2:22-cr-20250-1—Thomas L. Parker, District Judge.
Argued: September 10, 2024
Decided and Filed: October 10, 2024
Before: MOORE, McKEAGUE, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
Each year, millions of acts of domestic violence, and over 1,500 deaths from domestic
violence, occur in this country.1 While the law has long prohibited felons from possessing
firearms, many domestic-violence offenders are convicted of mere misdemeanors. So, in 1996,
Congress prohibited domestic-violence misdemeanants from possessing firearms in order “to
close a dangerous loophole in the gun control laws,” given that “firearms and domestic strife are
a potentially deadly combination.” United States v. Castleman, 572 U.S. 157, 159–60 (2014)
(internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). In Stimmel v. Sessions, 879 F.3d 198, 201
(6th Cir. 2018), we previously upheld this proscription, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), as constitutional.
But the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1
(2022), requires us to reconsider our precedent. We now hold that, even though Bruen abrogated
Stimmel, the result remains the same: 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) is facially constitutional. |