Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

statutemotionregulationfelonymotion to dismiss
motionmotion to dismiss

Related Cases

Steinman v. Di Roberts, 23 A.D.2d 693, 257 N.Y.S.2d 695
View Case »
Crowley v. Watson, 2016 IL App (1st) 142847, 51 N.E.3d 69, 401 Ill.Dec. 876, 331 Ed. Law Rep. 407, 41 IER Cases 626
View Case »
Brown v. Ross, 504 Mich. 871, 928 N.W.2d 183 (Mem)
View Case »
Augsburger v. Homestead Mut. Ins. Co., 359 Wis.2d 385, 2014 WI 133, 856 N.W.2d 874
View Case »
Wadleigh v. City of Manchester, 100 N.H. 277, 123 A.2d 831
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

United States v. Ogilvie, Slip Copy, 2024 WL 2804504

Facts

Alexander Jon Ogilvie has a history of firearm-related charges and was adjudicated for a felony discharge of a firearm as a minor. He was deemed a Category I restricted person under Utah law, prohibiting him from possessing firearms. On October 22, 2022, police found him with a handgun after he had purchased it on the same day he was to appear in court for a previous indictment. This led to the current federal indictment under § 922(n).

Mr. Ogilvie has a history of charges and convictions related to firearms.

Issue

Does 18 U.S.C. § 922(n), which prohibits the receipt of firearms by individuals under indictment, violate the Second Amendment?

Mr. Ogilvie now argues that § 922(n) violates the Second Amendment.

Rule

The Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess and carry weapons, but regulations must be consistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation.

The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Analysis

The court applied the Bruen test, determining that the Second Amendment's plain text covers Ogilvie's conduct. It found that the government met its burden to show that § 922(n) is consistent with historical regulations, such as colonial laws disarming perceived dangerous individuals and surety laws requiring bonds for carrying firearms. The court concluded that the statute imposes a comparable burden on the right of armed self-defense, which is justified given the potential threat posed by individuals under indictment.

The court first considers whether the Second Amendment's plain text covers Mr. Ogilvie's conduct.

Conclusion

The court denied Ogilvie's motion to dismiss, affirming that § 922(n) is constitutional and does not violate his Second Amendment rights.

Accordingly, the court denies his motion to dismiss.

Who won?

The United States prevailed in the case because the court found that § 922(n) is consistent with historical firearm regulations and serves a legitimate public safety interest.

This court agrees with the majority trend.

You must be