Constitutional challenge to FIP offense (18 USC § 922(g)(1)); New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v Bruen; United States v Rahimi; United States v Williams; “As applied” challenge; Remedy; Burden of proving “dangerousness”

The court vacated the district court’s ruling that the FIP statute, § 922(g)(1), violated the Second Amendment as applied to defendant-Hostettler and remanded to apply the governing legal standard set forth in Williams. Hostettler was previously convicted of FIP in 2019. While on supervised release, he absconded. When law enforcement found him, he had a gun, in violation of the terms of his supervised release. He was again charged with FIP in this case. He moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that under Bruen, § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional both facially and as applied. The district court granted his motion on the basis of his as-applied challenge. In accordance with the law “at the time, the district court considered only Hostettler’s felony record, as opposed to the entirety of his criminal record, and did not take account of [his] status on supervised release.” While this appeal was pending, in Williams the “court revisited the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) in light of the Supreme Court’s precedents in Bruen and Rahimi.” It found here that “Williams’s analysis conflicts with the district court’s in three important ways: first, the burden lies with Hostettler, not the government, to show he is not dangerous; second, the [district] court must consider Hostettler’s entire criminal history, not just his felony convictions; and third, his status on supervised release is potentially relevant.” The court rejected the government’s argument that Hostettler’s “dangerousness” had been established and that it should remand “with instructions to reinstate [his] indictment, without providing him the opportunity for individualized assessment as contemplated by Williams.” Rather, it agreed with him “that remanding with instructions to apply the proper legal standard is the most appropriate remedy.” Thus, it vacated and remanded with instructions for the district court “to reconsider Hostettler’s motion to dismiss the indictment consistent with current circuit precedent.”