Criminal – Firearm – Domestic violence

Listen to this article

Where a defendant was found guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. §§922(g)(9), which makes it unlawful for a person convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” to possess a firearm, the defendant should be denied relief on appeal despite his contention that §922(g)(9) is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to him and that evidence he wanted to introduce at his criminal trial was wrongly excluded.

Affirmed.

“In this appeal, Willie Richard Minor challenges his conviction under 18 U.S.C. §§924(a)(2) and 922(g)(9). Section 924(a)(2) provides that whoever ‘knowingly violates’ §922(g)(9) is subject to a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years. Section 922(g)(9) makes it ‘unlawful’ for a person convicted of a ‘misdemeanor crime of domestic violence’ to possess a firearm.

“At the time of Minor’s charged conduct, 18 U.S.C. §921(a)(33)(A) defined a ‘misdemeanor crime of domestic violence’ as an offense that ‘is a misdemeanor under Federal, State, or Tribal law’ and ‘has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by a current or former spouse’ or other intimate or familial relation. The predicate misdemeanor for Minor was his 2010 conviction under Maine law for simple assault of his then-wife.

“Minor bases his challenge to his federal conviction in part on the ground that, under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, §922(g)(9) is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to him. He also contends, however, that even if §922(g)(9) does not violate the Second Amendment, his conviction cannot stand because evidence that he wanted to introduce at his criminal trial in the United States District Court for the District of Maine was wrongly excluded. We affirm. …

“We begin with Minor’s challenge to the District Court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the superseding indictment on the ground that, under the Second Amendment, §922(g)(9) is ‘facially invalid’ and unconstitutional ‘as applied to him.’ …

“For these reasons, we conclude, based on [United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 698 (2024)], that §922(g)(9) ‘fits within our regulatory tradition.’ … Accordingly, we reject Minor’s Second Amendment-based challenge to his conviction. …

“Minor separately argues that we must vacate his conviction because the District Court improperly excluded evidence ‘concerning his belief that he was allowed to possess a firearm.’ …

“… Minor fails to show that the District Court erred in determining that the testimony regarding his belief that he could possess a firearm was not relevant. …

“Minor also takes issue with the District Court’s decision to exclude evidence about his ‘understanding of the impact of the charge of simple assault on his ability to possess a firearm.’ Specifically, he sought to introduce testimony from George Hess, the attorney who represented him during the 2010 state proceedings. As proffered, Hess would have testified that the state assistant district attorney who prosecuted Minor’s misdemeanor made representations that assured Hess that Minor would be able to possess a firearm if he pleaded guilty to the simple assault charge. In addition, Minor sought to introduce evidence that, as arranged by his plea, he would be able to possess firearms lawfully.

“Minor argues that he was entitled to present this evidence to show that his ‘good faith reliance on counsel’ negated the required mens rea, citing several out-of-circuit decisions for support. …

“The word ‘knowingly’ in the statute at issue in this case, however, permits the knowledge-of-status requirement here to be established by evidence that the defendant knew the characteristics of his prior offense that brought it within the definition of a ‘misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.’ In other words, that term does not require the defendant to know that the offense was classified as a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence for the purposes of §922(g)(9) or that he would be violating that law if he possessed a firearm. As a result, Minor has not shown that his attorney having advised him that, despite §921(a)(33)(A), his prior offense did not qualify as a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence provided him with a defense to the federal crime for which he was charged. Accordingly, Minor has not shown that the District Court abused its discretion by excluding the evidence about what Minor and his counsel in the 2010 state-court proceedings understood about the effect of Minor’s simple assault conviction on his right to possess firearms under federal law. …

“For these reasons, we affirm the denial of Minor’s motion to dismiss the indictment and Minor’s conviction.”

United States v. Minor (Lawyers Weekly No. 01-017-26) (31 pages) (Barron, C.J.) Appealed from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine (Docket No. 24-1651) (Jan. 27, 2026).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.