Background
A federal grand jury charged Wesley Shane Haggerty with one count of unlawful firearm possession. The count rested on two statutory grounds: possession by a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and possession by a person previously convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence under § 922(g)(9).
Haggerty moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that both provisions violated the Second Amendment facially and as applied to him under the historical-tradition framework announced in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen. He then entered a conditional guilty plea preserving his challenge. The district court denied his motion and sentenced him to 120 months in prison. On appeal, Haggerty summarily pursued only his as-applied challenges.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit affirmed in an unpublished per curiam opinion. It held that circuit precedent foreclosed Haggerty’s as-applied challenge to § 922(g)(1). Under United States v. Hunt, neither Bruen nor United States v. Rahimi displaced the Fourth Circuit’s precedent barring as-applied Second Amendment challenges to the federal felon-in-possession prohibition.
Because § 922(g)(1) independently supported Haggerty’s single count of conviction, the panel declined to decide whether § 922(g)(9), the prohibition applicable to people convicted of misdemeanor domestic-violence crimes, also constitutionally sustained the conviction. The court therefore affirmed without oral argument.
Key Takeaways
- Fourth Circuit precedent continues to foreclose as-applied Second Amendment challenges to § 922(g)(1).
- The panel treated Bruen and Rahimi as insufficient to disturb that circuit precedent.
- The court did not decide Haggerty’s challenge to § 922(g)(9) because the felon-in-possession ground independently supported his conviction.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that defendants litigating within the Fourth Circuit generally cannot obtain individualized Second Amendment review of § 922(g)(1) convictions under existing circuit law, even after Bruen and Rahimi.
The opinion does not resolve the constitutionality of § 922(g)(9) as applied to Haggerty or more broadly. It is unpublished and therefore is not binding precedent in the Fourth Circuit.