Enos v. Holder, 101614 FED9, 12-15498

Docket Nº:12-15498
Party Name:RICHARD ENOS; et al., Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judge Panel:Before: IKUTA, N.R. SMITH, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:October 16, 2014
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

RICHARD ENOS; et al., Plaintiffs - Appellants,


ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 12-15498

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

October 16, 2014


Argued and Submitted October 9, 2014 San Francisco, California

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding

Before: IKUTA, N.R. SMITH, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.


Appellants jointly appeal the district court's decision to dismiss their request for injunctive and declaratory relief from the firearm prohibition imposed by 18 U.S.C § 922(g)(9) ("Lautenberg Amendment"). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo the district court's order granting the motion to dismiss, see Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005), we affirm.

The Lautenberg Amendment does not violate Appellants' Second Amendment rights. Under Chovan (decided after District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)), the Lautenberg Amendment is constitutional on its face, because the statute is substantially related to the important government purpose of reducing domestic gun violence. United States v. Chovan, 735 F.3d 1127, 1139-41 (9th Cir. 2013). Additionally, there is no evidence in this record demonstrating the statute is unconstitutional as applied to the Appellants. Further, when questioned, counsel for Appellants declined to suggest such evidence exists. Therefore, the district court correctly held that amendment of the complaint would be futile. See Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003).

At the time each Appellant (except Newman) entered his plea, the Lautenberg Amendment was not federal law. However, as the district court properly determined, each Appellant's plea was made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. See United States v. Navarro-Botello, 912 F.2d 318, 320-21 (9th Cir. 1990). The enactment of the Lautenberg Amendment did not change the validity of each Appellant's plea. "[A]bsent misrepresentation or other impermissible conduct by state agents, [Appellant's] voluntary plea . . . made in the light of the then applicable law" may not be withdrawn later, long after the plea has been accepted, "merely because [Appellant] discovers" that he miscalculated the likely penalties. Brady v....

To continue reading