Background
Jeremy Scott Allred was convicted in Texas state court of Assault Causing Bodily Injury to a Family Member, a Class A misdemeanor involving intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causing bodily injury to his spouse. He was subsequently charged in federal court with violating 18 United States Code Section 922 subsection g paragraph 9 for possessing a firearm following that conviction. Allred moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing the statute exceeded Congress’s Commerce Clause authority and violated the Second Amendment. The district court denied the motion, and Allred pleaded guilty while reserving his right to appeal the denial. He was sentenced to sixteen months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release before appealing to the Fifth Circuit.
The court’s reasoning
The court rejected Allred’s Commerce Clause challenge, noting that while the precedent United States versus Alcantar addressed a different subsection, its reasoning applies equally to Section 922 subsection g paragraph 9. Regarding the Second Amendment challenge, the court applied the Bruen framework, requiring the government to demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The court found that Section 922 subsection g paragraph 9 addresses a comparable problem to Founding-era surety and going armed laws, which targeted individuals who posed a threat of physical violence. The court concluded that a judicial determination of a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction sufficiently mirrors the historical requirement of a finding that an individual threatens others. The court also addressed Allred’s argument regarding reckless conduct, distinguishing his intentional use of force that recklessly caused injury from scenarios involving purely accidental force. Judge James E. Graves Jr. concurred in the judgment, expressing concern that the majority’s categorical approach ignores individualized assessments of a defendant’s specific dangerousness, which he argued is required by precedent and the Bruen decision.
What it means going forward
The decision confirms that individuals convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence in the Fifth Circuit remain subject to federal firearm prohibitions, regardless of whether the underlying conduct involved intentional or reckless force, provided the conviction establishes a threat to physical safety.