United States v. Johnson, 73-2176.
| Decision Date | 29 April 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 73-2176.,73-2176. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Major Henry JOHNSON, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Leigh B. Hanes, Jr., U. S. Atty., and Ronald D. Hodges, Asst. U. S. Atty., on brief for appellee.
Dean MacD. Greiner Court-appointed, Bristol, Va., on brief for appellant.
Before CRAVEN, BUTZNER and RUSSELL, Circuit Judges.
Major Henry Johnson was convicted by a jury of transporting a firearm in interstate commerce after having been convicted of a felony, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). He appeals, challenging the district court's instructions and contesting the constitutionality of section 922(g). For the reasons set forth below, we disagree with Johnson's arguments and affirm the conviction.
Johnson was convicted in 1970 under Va.Code Ann. § 18.1-96 of one count of forgery and one count of uttering. He was sentenced to serve consecutive terms of six months in jail for each count. On February 23, 1973, Johnson purchased a .22 caliber handgun from a firearms dealer in Bristol, Virginia, and subsequently transported the gun on his person to Kingsport, Tennessee, where he was arrested and charged with making false statements to a federally licensed firearm dealer in order to acquire a firearm,1 and transporting a firearm in interstate commerce by a convicted felon.
Johnson complains that the trial court improperly charged the jury that his prior conviction of forgery is a "felony" under Virginia law. He maintains that the Virginia statute allows the jury an option either to sentence him to penitentiary or to jail,2 and since it chose to send him to jail, it reduced the character of his offense from a felony to a misdemeanor.
We note initially that the instruction complained of on appeal was not objected to by defense counsel at the trial. Rule 30 of the Fed.R.Crim.P. is specific: "No party may assign as error any portion of the charge . . . unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection." Johnson asserts, however, that the instruction constituted "plain error," noticeable on appeal notwithstanding his failure to object. Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b).3 We think not.
18 U.S.C.A. App. § 1202(c) (2) defines a "felony" as any "offense punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, but does not include any offense (other than one involving a firearm or explosive) classified as a misdemeanor under the laws of a State and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less." Virginia law provides a simple method to determine whether forgery is to be classified as a "felony" or a "misdemeanor":
Offenses are either felonies or misdemeanors. Such offenses as are punishable with death or confinement in the penitentiary are felonies; all other offenses are misdemeanors.
Va.Code Ann. § 18.1-6. (Emphasis added.) This language makes clear that whether forgery is a "felony" or is a "misdemeanor" is determined by the sentence lawfully possible under section 18.1-96 and does not depend upon the sentence actually imposed or the nature of the offense. Fletcher v. Commonwealth, 163 Va. 1007, 175 S.E. 895 (1934); Benton v. Commonwealth, 89 Va. 570, 16 S.E. 725 (1893). See also Hanbury v. Commonwealth, 203 Va. 182, 122 S.E.2d 911 (1961). Since Johnson was subject to confinement in the penitentiary for a term not to exceed ten years, he was not convicted of a "misdemeanor," even though he was given a lenient sentence.4
Johnson's argument that section 922(g) is an unconstitutional violation of his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is not new. See, e. g., United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939). The courts have consistently held that the Second Amendment only confers a collective right of keeping and bearing arms which must bear a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." 307 U.S. at 178, 59 S.Ct. at 818. Johnson presents no evidence that section 922(g) in any way affects the maintenance of a well regulated militia. See Cody v. United States, 460 F.2d 34 (8th Cir. 1972). Johnson's argument that the statute violates his rights protected by Fourth and Fifth Amendments is without merit. See United States v. Weatherford, 471 F.2d 47 (7th Cir. 1972); United States v. Cabbler, 429 F.2d 577 (4th Cir. 1970). Cf. United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 92 S.Ct. 515, 30 L.Ed.2d 488 (1971).
We dispense with oral argument and affirm the conviction.
Affirmed.
1 18 U.S.C. § 922(a) (6). Johnson was acquitted of this charge.
2 Va.Code Ann. § 18.1-96 provides:
If any person forge any writing,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Rybar
...United States v. Three Winchester 30-30 Caliber Lever Action Carbines, 504 F.2d 1288, 1290 n. 5 (7th Cir.1974); United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548, 550 (4th Cir.1974); Cases, 131 F.2d at 923. We see no reason why § 922(o) should be an In light of the foregoing, we reject Rybar's challen......
-
U.S. v. Arzberger
...103 F.3d 273, 285-86 (3d Cir.1996); Thomas v. City Council of Portland, 730 F.2d 41, 42 (1st Cir.1984); United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548, 550 (4th Cir.1974) (per curiam); United States v. Johnson, 441 F.2d 1134, 1136 (5th Cir.1971); but see United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203, 218-......
-
Dist. of Columbia v. Heller
...1016, 1018–1020 (C.A.8 1992); Thomas v. City Council of Portland, 730 F.2d 41, 42 (C.A.1 1984) (per curiam); United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548, 550 (C.A.4 1974) (per curiam); United States v. Johnson, 441 F.2d 1134, 1136 (C.A.5 1971); see also Sandidge v. United States, 520 A.2d 1057, ......
-
U.S. v. Boyd
...United States v. Three Winchester 30-30 Caliber Lever Action Carbines, 504 F.2d 1288, 1290 n.t (7th Cir.1974); United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548 (4th Cir.1974); Cody v. United States, 460 F.2d 34 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1010, 93 S.Ct. 454, 34 L.Ed.2d 303 (1972) (the latter t......
-
The rise of private militia: a First and Second Amendment analysis of the right to organize and the right to train.
...of arms is not related to the preservation or efficiency of a militia." Hale, 978 F.2d at 1020 see also United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548, 550 (4th Cir. 1974) (concluding that "courts have consistently held that the Second Amendment only confers a collective right of keeping and bearin......
-
Gun control and economic discrimination: the melting-point case-in-point.
...(interpreting the Second Amendment purely in terms of protecting state militia, rather than individual rights); United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548, 550 (4th Cir. 1974) ("[T]he Second Amendment only confers a collective right of keeping and bearing arms."). (80) For a historically-based ......
-
The Janus-faced Second Amendment: Looking Backward to the Renaissance, Forward to the Enlightenment
...149 (6th Cir. 1971); United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103, 105 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 948 (1976); United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548 (4th Cir. 1974); United States v. Kozerski, 518 F. Supp. 1082, 1090 (D.N.H. 1981). That position became untenable because the Framers uniforml......