UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. SAMUEL ROBERT HOSFORD
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Gregory, Dec. 6, 2016,
Second Amendment – 18 USC 922‘s prohibition against unlicensed firearm dealing comports with the Second and Fifth Amendments.
Facts: Defendant, who doesn’t have a license to sell firearms, met UC in a parking lot five times and sold him firearms without checking his status.
Constitutional Challenges: Facial and “As Applied”
Facial Challenge- no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid
“the prohibition against unlicensed firearm dealing is a longstanding condition or qualification on the commercial sale of arms and is thus facially constitutional”
18 USC 921 defines “engaged in the business” to exclude “occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms”
Second Amendment – this Court has established a two-pronged analysis for Second Amendment challenges: “whether the challenged law imposes a burden on conduct falling within the scope of the Second Amendment’s guarantee,” and if so, whether the challenged law survives “an appropriate form of means-end scrutiny.”
Second Amendment – laws burdening “core” Second Amendment conduct receive strict scrutiny, while less severe burdens receive only intermediate scrutiny. We noted that core Second Amendment conduct includes the “fundamental right to possess firearms for self-defense within the home.
But a considerable degree of uncertainty remains as to the scope of that right beyond the home . . . .” “[A]s we move outside the home, firearm rights have always been more limited, because public safety interests often outweigh individual interests in self defense.”
The law, therefore, regulates rather than restricts, addresses only conduct occurring outside the home, and does not touch on self-defense concerns. It is thus subject to intermediate scrutiny.
To satisfy intermediate scrutiny, the government must show that “there is a ‘reasonable fit’ between the challenged regulation and a ‘substantial’ government objective.”