The Oklahoma Bar Journal March 2023

level because of the possession of a high-capacity magazine as with U.S. Sentencing Guideline §2K2.1 or overrepresenting a criminal history for a previous firearms offense affected by Bruen – as the possible source for objections, motions for departure or motions for variance considering they stem from conduct arguably protected by the Second Amendment. Onerous bond con ditions or pretrial detention based on the existence of a prior firearm possession offense may be suscep tible to challenge. Bruen could even have applicability in the Fourth Amendment context. Since Bruen holds that people generally have a constitutional right to carry guns in public, law enforcement may have difficulty basing reasonable suspicion or probable cause on the fact that they see a person simply possessing a handgun. Bruen leaves open a myriad of challenges to firearm regulation. Every statute, regulation and sen tencing enhancement is subject to challenge. If your client is charged with a firearm offense, you should analyze the burden of the regula tion through Bruen’s new test. It’s a new day for firearm offenses.

defense, administrative law and commercial litigation. He previously served as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Oklahoma and a Navy judge advocate. Mr. Hofland graduated from Notre Dame Law School in 2009. Justin A. Lollman is a shareholder at commercial litigation and white-collar criminal defense. Before entering private practice, Mr. Lollman clerked on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. GableGotwals, where his practice focuses on appeals, complex

same meaning as it carries in other parts of the Bill of Rights.”). 36. Thomas Dyche and William Pardon, A New General English Dictionary (14th ed. 1771) (defining “people” as signifying “every person, or the whole collection of inhabitants in a nation or kingdom”); 2 Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) defining “people” as the “body of persons who compose a community, town, city or nation,” a “word … comprehend[ing] all classes of inhabitants”); see also Nathan Bailey, A Universal Etymological English Dictionary (1790) (defining “people” as signifying “the whole Body of Persons who live in a Country, or make up a Nation”); 2 Samuel Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language (1766) (defining “people” as “[a] nation; those who compose a community”); 2 John Ash, The New and Complete Dictionary of the English Language (2d ed. 1795) (defining “people” as “[a] nation, the individuals composing a community; the commonalty, the bulk of a nation”); Gordon Wood, The Creation of the American Republic 607 (1998) (“[T]he word ‘people’ in America had taken on a different meaning from what it had in Europe. In America it meant the whole community and comprehended every human creature in society.”). 37. Heller , 554 U.S. at 582.

38. Id. at 584. 39. Id. at 576. 40. See, e.g. , 18 U.S.C. §922(g). 41. Heller , 554 U.S. at 581. 42. Id. at 582. 43. Id. at 629. 44. Bruen , slip op. at 15. 45. Id. at 20-21. 46. Id. at 15, 50 n.25. 47. Id. at 52. 48. Id. at 17 n.6. 49. Id. at 17 n.6, 35-36 n.11. 50. Id. at 21. 51. Id. 52. Id. at 20-21. 53. Id. at 17. 54. Id.

ENDNOTES

1. No. 20-843, slip op. (2022). 2. Id. at 10. 3. Id. at 15.

4. Id. at 15, 29. 5. Id. at 15, 30. 6. U.S. Const. amend. II. 7. District of Columbia v. Heller , 554 U.S. 570, 576 (2008). 8. McDonald v. City of Chicago , 561 U.S. 742, 791 (2010). 9. Id .; Heller , 554 U.S. at 628-29, 634-35. 10. Bruen , slip op. at 8, 10 & n.4. 11. Id. at 9.

55. Id. at 17-18. 56. Id. at 17, 20. 57. Id. at 49 (quoting Heller , 554 U.S. at 633-34). 58. See id. at 18, 49. 59. Id. at 15. 60. Id. at 21, 25-27. 61. Id. at 37, 57. 62. Id. at 25. 63. Id. 64. Id. at 25-28. 65. Id. at 26. 66. Id. 67. Id. at 27-38. 71. United States v. Price , No. 2:22-CR-00097, 2022 WL 6968457, at *6 (S.D.W. Va. Oct. 12, 2022). 72. United States v. Rahimi , No. 21-11011, 2023 WL 1459240, at *10 (5th Cir. Feb. 2, 2023). United States v. Perez-Gallan , No. PE:22-CR 00427-DC, 2022 WL 16858516, at *15 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 10, 2022). 73. United States v. Harrison , No. 5:22-CR-00328-PRW, 2023 WL 1771138, at *24 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 3, 2023). 74. United States v. Stambaugh , No. CR-22 00218-PRW-2, 2022 WL 16936043, at *6 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 14, 2022); United States v. Quiroz , No. PE:22-CR-00104-DC, 2022 WL 4352482, at *13 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 19, 2022). 75. Range v. Attorney Gen. United States of Am. , 56 F.4th 992 (3rd Cir. 2023). 68. Id. 69. Id. 70. Id. at 58 n.28.

12. Id. 13. Id. 14. Id. 15. Id. at 10. 16. Id . at 2. 17. Id . at 3. 18. Id . 19. Id . at 4. 20. Id . at 6-7.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

John D. Russell is co-chair of the White Collar Criminal Defense & Corporate Investigations group at GableGotwals.

21. Id . at 7. 22. Id . at 7. 23. Id . at 1-2, 62-63. 24. Id. at 8. 25. Id . at 8-15. 26. Id . at 15. 27. Id. at 10-11 (quoting Heller , 554 U.S. at 28. Id . at 25. 29. 1 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 407 (1833). 30. Heller , 554 U.S. at 576. 31. Gibbons v. Ogden , 22 U.S. 1, 71 (1824) (Marshall, C.J.); see Antonin Scalia and Brian A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 69-77 (2012). 32. U.S. Const. amend. II. 33. Heller , 554 U.S. at 579. 34. Id. 35. Id . at 580 (quoting United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 265 (1990)); see United States v. Meza-Rodriguez , 798 F.3d 664, 669-70 (7th Cir. 2015) (“[T]he term ‘the people’ in the Second Amendment has the 576-77, 578).

He has more than 30 years’ experience practicing criminal and civil litigation, including service as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Oklahoma and a trial attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division. Andrew J. Hofland is a trial lawyer at

GableGotwals, who practices in the areas of white-collar criminal

MARCH 2023 | 11

THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL