Today is Monday, April 21, 2014rss RSS feed

By Eugene Volokh, Volokh.com,

Circular Reasoning

District Court Concludes 2A Secures Right to Carry, But Not While Employed for a Felon

Eugene Volokh

Eugene Volokh, Volokh.com

USA --(Ammoland.com)- So holds United States v. Weaver (S.D. W. Va. Mar. 6, 2012).

The judge expressly endorsed Judge Niemeyer’s separate opinion in United States v. Masciandaro (4th Cir. 2011) that concluded that the Second Amendment applies outside the home and not just in the home, and that restrictions on gun carrying must be tested under so-called intermediate scrutiny.”

(For more on the dispute among courts about the right to keep and bear arms outside the home, see this post about yesterday’s district court decision striking down Maryland’s broad gun carry restrictions.)

But the court held that 18 U.S.C. § 922(h), which bars people from knowingly possessing guns “in the course of … employment” “while being employed for any person” who is himself a felon possessing guns. (Here, the defendants were allegedly members of the Pagans Motorcycle Club, and were allegedly taking instructions from a club leader who was a convicted felon.) Among other things, the court held that,

Section 922(h) is … limited in [important] respects: temporally, an individual is only precluded from possessing a firearm while acting in the course of his employment for a prohibited person, and he is free to regain his right to possess firearms by simply parting with the employment relationship. To be quite clear, even an individual who maintains an employment relationship with a prohibited person may lawfully possess firearms, provided he is not acting in the course of employment at the time of the firearm possession. From this discussion, it is clear that Congress tailored the prohibition in § 922(h) to cover only certain individuals at certain times and when they act in certain ways. In other words, the scope of § 922(h) is effectively limited to vicarious possession by prohibited persons, although it penalizes the proxy rather than the prohibited person. It is a commonsense extension of the prohibitions contained in § 922(g). Just as § 922(g) strips firearms from the possession of prohibited persons, § 922(h) effectively strips firearms from their control.

The court does not discuss the situation where someone is employed “for” (the statutory requirement) a person, but whose gun-related actions are not controlled by a person — for instance, if a felon contracts with a security company to provide him with a full-time bodyguard. In that situation, I would think that the bodyguard is “employed for” the felon, though not employed by the felon. Likewise, the court does not discuss what happens when § 922(h) is applied to people who are employed for” other people who aren’t themselves allowed to possess guns, such as nonresident (but legally admitted) aliens, people who have a history of mental problems, and the like. Section 922(h) applies to anyone who is “employed for” a person who is legally not allowed to possess guns himself, whether because of felony or some other disqualifying characteristic.

I would think that in many such situations the bodyguard’s own Second Amendment rights — including such rights exercised in a place that the bodyguard and the protected person are using as a temporary home — should prevail, at least if the bodyguard is responsible to a security company even though he is “employed for” the company’s client.

But perhaps that could be avoided by construing “employed for” narrowly; in this case, the government’s claim is that the defendant’s gun use was indeed being controlled by the felon motorcycle club leader.

 

About:
Eugene Volokh is a law professor at UCLA, who specializes in free speech, religious freedom, church-state relations, and gun rights; he is the author of two textbooks, over 70 academic articles, and over 80 op-eds, and is the founder of The Volokh Conspiracy blog.

Ammoland Click to read AmmoLand FTC Marital Disclosures Distributed to you by - AmmoLand.com – The Shooting Sports News source.
  • 3 User comments to “District Court Concludes 2A Secures Right to Carry, But Not While Employed for a Felon”

    1. Aplachie on March 8, 2012 at 7:39 PM said:

      Mr Volokh; It is great to see you on AmmoLand Gun News, I am so glad you have chosen to help support their pro gun news efforts!

    2. Does this mean D.C. police can’t carry guns because they work for Marion Barry and other criminals in D.C.?

    3. Mark Matis on March 10, 2012 at 9:07 AM said:

      Well said, Carl! When will the prosecutions start?

    Leave a Comment

    • Sign up Ammoland for your Inbox

      Daily Digest

      Monthly Newsletter

    • Recent Comments

      • James: San Antonio will lose on this one in the long run in court. Henry will no doubt be convicted in city court by...
      • Chuck Johnson: This 2013 Rebate was a scam. We sent all the proper paperwork and barcodes required on time and they...
      • Jim: Hummmm, the government has declared a three mile no fly zone around the Bundy ranch area. Little drones do not...
      • Rich: Oh yeah the Rav4 my neighbors daughter just bought one…cute little car. Maybe next time do a write up on...
      • RG: The man is a complete moran, a fool and a scammer, tried to scam multiple companies in the USA posing as a...
    • maximum
      Login with Facebook: Log In
      Powered by Sociable!
    • Facebook Activity

    • Google+ Direct Connect

    Copyright 2014 AmmoLand.com Shooting Sports News | Sitemap | Μολὼν λαβέ

    Sign up for the Ammoland Daily Digest

    * indicates required
    Daily Digest is a daily recap of Firearms industry news, 2nd Amendment politics , and product articles delivered to the inbox. Stay informed to keep your Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
    Yes, I want the Monthly email newsletter subscription to Ammoland so I can get a single newsletter once a month on the hot new products from the Firearms Industry!
    8828440
    9329904