Firearms — misdemeanor domestic violence convictions — knowledge

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Criminal

Firearms — misdemeanor domestic violence convictions — knowledge

The trial court properly rejected a defense in an 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9) prosecution that the defendant’s attorney in his misdemeanor case led him to believe that he could lawfully own a firearm.

“Stein seeks to distinguish both Wilson decisions by differentiating persons convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), from those who violate other subsections of § 922(g), including felons, id. § 922(g)(1), fugitives, id. § 922(g)(2), unlawful users of controlled substances, id. § 922(g)(3), and persons committed to a mental institution, id. § 922(g)(4). He argues that these other classes of prohibited persons know about their status, either because the factual circumstances are obvious or because the judge is required to engage in an extensive colloquy with the defendant. Thus, he continues, persons convicted under other subsections of § 922(g) are less likely to be unaware of the collateral consequences and loss of certain rights. In contrast, Stein asserts, he was affirmatively told during his plea hearing in state court that his conviction would not trigger the federal firearm ban. What is telling, however, is that Stein does not distinguish persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence from those subject to a domestic-relations restraining order, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8). The bases for disqualification under subsections (g)(9) and (g)(8) are similar, and yet in Carlton Wilson we rejected the same theory that Stein presents here and concluded that for subsection (g)(8) ‘knowingly’ means knowledge of the facts constituting the offense, not knowledge that those facts make gun possession illegal. 159 F.3d at 288-89; see also United States v. Shelton, 325 F.3d 553, 563 (5th Cir. 2003) (‘We perceive no principled reason for drawing an analytical distinction between § 922(g)(8) and § 922(g)(9).’).”

Affirmed.

12-2182 U.S. v. Stein

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Griesbach, J., Per Curiam.