This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Police officers responded to a report of shots fired at D's home. A conflict arose between P's husband, John, and their neighbor. The neighbor reported that John came to his door with a machete, demanded he 'apologize' for a perceived slight, and then left before returning with a shotgun. Officers heard several shots upon arriving, saw John at the neighbor's door, and arrested him after he dropped the shotgun and attempted to escape. Officers went to the Connellys' house and spoke with D before conducting a sweep. D told officers that John and the neighbor used crack and powdered cocaine together and that she would at times smoke marijuana as a sleep aid and for anxiety. The sweep revealed drug paraphernalia and an array of unsecured firearms and ammunition strewn about the home, including, in the bedroom, a pistol that D purchased. D was indicted by a grand jury on two charges: (1) possessing firearms and ammunition as an unlawful user of a controlled substance, and (2) providing firearms and ammunition to an unlawful user of a controlled substance. The indictment also contained forfeiture allegations concerning the guns and assorted ammunition found at the Connellys' house as involved in D's offense. D moved to dismiss her indictment, arguing that New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, showed that §§ 922(g)(3) and 922(d)(3) are unconstitutional under its historical analysis. Eventually, the District Court then agreed with D applying Rahimi 2023 and finding that §§ 922(g)(3) and 922(d)(3) are facial violations of the Second Amendment and that § 922(g)(3) is unconstitutional as applied to D. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.