Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca6-24-05455/USCOURTS-ca6-24-05455-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tanner Garrison
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 24a0507n.06

No. 24-5455

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

TANNER GARRISON,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT FOR THE WESTERN 

DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

OPINION

BEFORE: SUTTON, Chief Judge; MURPHY and BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judges.

BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judge. While running from police officers, Tanner Garrison 

tossed a 9mm magazine and six rounds of 9mm ammunition from his pockets. He had previous 

convictions for felonies including kidnapping. A grand jury indicted him for being a felon in 

possession of ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Garrison moved to dismiss the 

indictment, arguing § 922(g)(1) violates his Second Amendment rights. The district court denied 

his motion. As his appeal was pending, our court decided United States v. Williams, 113 F.4th 637 

(6th Cir. 2024), which analyzed § 922(g)(1)’s constitutionality. It held that § 922(g)(1) is facially 

constitutional and does not violate the Second Amendment as applied to felons whose criminal 

history indicates dangerousness. Because Garrison’s criminal history includes violent crimes, we 

affirm. 

BACKGROUND

The night of October 1, 2022, police responded to “shots fired” outside a home in 

Dyersburg, Tennessee. Someone had shot at an empty pickup truck in the driveway, striking it four 

Case: 24-5455 Document: 14-2 Filed: 12/09/2024 Page: 1
No. 24-5455, United States v. Garrison

-2-

times. A neighbor recounted seeing two men speed away in a gold or tan Nissan Altima. Police 

recovered 9mm shell casings and fragments near the truck.

A few hours later, an officer reported more shots fired in the same neighborhood. Police 

canvassed the area and encountered Tanner Garrison, who fled on foot. As he ran from them, 

Garrison emptied his pockets. Eventually, he surrendered. Officers then searched the path Garrison

had run through and found a 9mm magazine, six rounds of 9mm ammunition, and keys to a black 

Nissan Altima. On August 14, 2023, a grand jury indicted Garrison for violating 18 U.S.C. 

§ 922(g)(1), which bars felons from having firearms or ammunition. 

Garrison has a lengthy criminal record. He has several prior felony convictions, including 

for kidnapping, being a violent felon in possession of a weapon, aggravated burglary, and theft. 

He’s also been convicted of over a dozen other crimes like assault, drug possession, resisting arrest, 

and violating a restraining order. Some of his crimes involved violence. For example, in 2018

Garrison was convicted of kidnapping and assault after he held his girlfriend in his grandparents’ 

home against her will for four hours, kneed her in the mouth, pulled her hair, and hit her, leaving 

bruises all over her body. Garrison also hit his grandfather in the head, breaking his orbital bone 

and fracturing other bones in his face. Likewise, some of Garrison’s offenses involved weapons. 

In the incident that led to his felon-in-possession, aggravated burglary, and theft convictions in 

2019, Garrison stole guns, ammunition, clothing, hunting gear, jewelry, and a utility vehicle from 

a home. 

On February 9, 2024, Garrison pleaded guilty to violating § 922(g)(1). But he reserved his 

right to move to dismiss the indictment based on the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State 

Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), and to appeal an adverse ruling on that 

motion. Two months later, he moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that § 922(g)(1) violates 

Case: 24-5455 Document: 14-2 Filed: 12/09/2024 Page: 2
No. 24-5455, United States v. Garrison

-3-

the Second Amendment on its face and as applied to him. The district court denied his motion, and 

he appealed. 

ANALYSIS

Garrison argues that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment on its face and as applied 

to him. Because he challenges a statute’s constitutionality, we review de novo. United States v. 

Gailes, 118 F.4th 822, 824 (6th Cir. 2024). During the pendency of Garrison’s appeal, our court 

decided Williams, which addressed a violent criminal’s facial and as-applied Second Amendment 

challenges to his § 922(g)(1) conviction. See 113 F.4th at 662–63. Applying Williams here, we 

conclude the district court properly denied Garrison’s motion to dismiss.

Williams forecloses Garrison’s facial challenge. A statute is unconstitutional on its face if 

“no set of circumstances exists under which [it] would be valid.” Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, 144 

S. Ct. 2383, 2397 (2024) (citation omitted). Yet in Williams, we noted that “most applications of 

§ 922(g)(1) are constitutional.” 113 F.4th at 657. And we held the statute constitutional as applied 

in that case. Id. at 662–63. Thus, as we did in Williams, we conclude that § 922(g)(1) “is not 

susceptible to a facial challenge.” Id. at 657.

Garrison’s as-applied challenge fails under Williams too. In Williams, the court held that

§ 922(g)(1) is constitutional “as applied to dangerous people.” Id. at 662–63. To evaluate the 

defendant’s dangerousness, Williams looked to his “entire criminal record,” which in that case 

included convictions for attempted murder, armed robbery, and hiding a gun “used to murder a 

police officer.” Id. Although it avoided using “bright categorical lines,” the court made the 

“commonsense point” that “violent crimes” like the ones the defendant had committed provided 

“at least strong evidence” of dangerousness. Id. at 658, 660. Like the defendant in Williams,

Garrison has committed violent and dangerous crimes. In one instance, he kidnapped his girlfriend, 

Case: 24-5455 Document: 14-2 Filed: 12/09/2024 Page: 3
No. 24-5455, United States v. Garrison

-4-

beat her, and attacked his grandfather. In another, he stole firearms from someone’s house. And, 

also like Williams, Garrison hasn’t provided any evidence to show he isn’t dangerous. See id. at 

661–62 (noting that § 922(g)(1) defendants must have an opportunity to demonstrate that they are 

not dangerous). As a result, § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to him.

CONCLUSION

We affirm the district court’s denial of Garrison’s motion to dismiss the indictment.

Case: 24-5455 Document: 14-2 Filed: 12/09/2024 Page: 4