Background
Dion Kirk Humphrey appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the government. The district court held that Humphrey was precluded from possessing firearms due to a conviction under the Anchorage Municipal Code that qualified as a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. Humphrey argued that applying the federal prohibition to his 2010 conviction violated the ex post facto clause because the law was amended in 2022 to include local law convictions. He also claimed eligibility for a statutory exception and argued the prohibition violated his Second and Fifth Amendment rights.
The court’s reasoning
The court explained that the ex post facto clause does not apply because the relevant offense is the current crime of possessing a firearm, not the predicate domestic violence conviction. The court cited precedent stating that bona fide attempts to regulate future conduct by restricting firearm possession based on past conduct do not violate the clause. The court found the statutory exception inapplicable because Humphrey shares a child with the person he was convicted of abusing. The Second Amendment argument was precluded by a recent Ninth Circuit decision, and the due process claim was undercut by existing precedent and the availability of avenues to challenge the conviction.
What it means going forward
The ruling reinforces the enforceability of federal firearm prohibitions against individuals with misdemeanor domestic violence convictions, even when the statutory scope was expanded after the conviction occurred.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download