Smith v. United States

Background

Brent Michael Smith was convicted of seven felonies in Minnesota and Iowa during the 1990s. The convictions included burglary and theft convictions in Minnesota, theft convictions in Iowa, and felony operating-while-intoxicated convictions in Iowa. These convictions resulted in restrictions on his ability to possess firearms under state and federal law.

In 2015, a Minnesota state court restored Smith’s ability to possess firearms under Minnesota law. That order directed court personnel to send information about the restoration to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), but it expressly took no position on whether Smith’s firearm rights had been restored in Iowa. Smith later received Minnesota firearm permits, but the Dodge County Sheriff’s Office eventually voided one permit before reversing that decision and reissuing it.

Between 2016 and 2020, NICS denied three of Smith’s firearm purchases because of his criminal history. The Federal Bureau of Investigation told Smith in February 2020 that he remained prohibited under 18 U.S.C. §§ 921(a)(20) and 922(g)(1), explaining that Minnesota’s restoration of rights did not restore federal firearm rights connected to his Iowa convictions.

Claim and governing law

Smith sued the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 925A and 28 U.S.C. § 2201. He sought an order allowing him to purchase firearms and requiring correction of what he claimed was erroneous NICS information. He also sought attorneys’ fees and costs.

The United States moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The court explained that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) generally bars a person convicted in any court of a crime punishable by more than one year in prison from possessing or receiving firearms. Section 921(a)(20) provides that whether a conviction qualifies is determined under the law of the jurisdiction where the proceedings occurred. It also excludes a conviction for which civil rights have been restored, with that restoration question governed by the law of the convicting jurisdiction.

Court’s analysis

The court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Beecham v. United States and the Eighth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Lowe. The court understood those decisions to require that only the jurisdiction where the conviction occurred can restore civil rights for purposes of the federal firearm restrictions in §§ 921(a)(20) and 922(g)(1).

Smith alleged that Minnesota had restored his firearm rights, but he did not allege that Iowa had restored his civil rights or that Iowa had expunged, pardoned, or set aside his qualifying convictions. The court therefore concluded that Minnesota’s restoration applied only to Smith’s Minnesota convictions. It did not affect his Iowa convictions or the federal restriction based on those convictions.

Disposition

The court granted the United States’ motion to dismiss. It dismissed Smith’s complaint without prejudice and directed that judgment be entered accordingly. Judge Eric C. Tostrud signed the order.