# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 7- 15 58

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e ,

v.

Darre n Kyle St ep p- Zafft
,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of S ou th Dako ta - Sio ux Fal ls

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Apri l 9 , 20 18 Fi le d: May 11, 2 01 8 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Darre n Ky le St ep p- Zafft was co nv ic te d at tri al on th ree co un ts of po ss es si on of un reg is te red fir earm s, in vi ol at io n of 26 U.S.C. §§ 58 61 (d ) an d 58 71

. The di st ric tc o u r t s en te nc ed hi m to a to ta l of th irt y -s ev en m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. St ep p- Zaf

f t 1

ap pe al s hi s co nv ic ti on s, arg ui ng fo r th e fir st ti m e on ap pe al th at th e r e g i s t r a t io n
req ui rem en ts are un co ns ti tu ti on al

. W e co nc lu de th at th e r e is no pl ai n erro r

warra nt in g re li ef, an d we t he refo re af fir m

.

The pr os ecu ti on aro se fro m th e ex ecu ti on of a se arch warra nt at St ep p- Zafft ’s

ap art m en t in Si ou x Fal ls
, So ut h Dak ot a. Law en fo rcem en t o ffi cers di sc ov ered

nu m ero us fir earm s, gr en ad e bo di es , fu se s, bl ack po wde r, em pt y carb on di ox id e pe ll et
gu n cy li nd ers , an d wha t ap pe ared to be two ho m em ad e si le nc ers fas hi on ed ou t of oi l

an d fu el fil te rs

. A se arch of th e Nati on al Fi rear m s Reg is tra ti on an d Tran sf er Rec or d

rev eal ed th at so m e o f th es e it em s wer e n ot reg is te red to Ste pp -Zafft , as re qu ire d b y 26 U.S.C. § 58 61 (d ). A gr an d jury ch arg e d St ep p- Zafft wit h th ree co un ts of

po ss es si on of un re g i st ered fir earm s— na m el y , fiv e sh or t-b arre le d rif le s, ni ne de st ru ct iv e d ev ic es , and two si le nc ers

.

At t ria l, ag en ts de sc rib ed th e it em s se iz ed fro m Ste pp -Zafft ’s apa rtment. Al l fiv e of th e un r e g is te red sh or t-b arre le d rif le s ha d be en m od ifi ed fro m th ei r or ig in al de si gn

. Two ha d be en m od ifi ed wit h ba rrel s sh or te r th an si xt een in ch es

. The ot he r th ree were or ig in al ly de si gn ed an d s ol d a s pi st ol s, bu t th ey ha d bee n con ve rte d in to sh or t-b arre le d rif

le s wit h th e ad di ti on of a sh ou ld er st oc k. St ep p- Zafft te st ifi ed th at th e fir earm s be lo ng ed to hi s m ot he r an d th at sh e ha d m od ifi ed th em

. He al so cl ai m ed th at th e ob

jects ch ar ge d as un reg is te red si le nc ers were m erel y ho m em ad e “ so lv en t
tra ps ” us ed fo r cl ean in g gu ns

. The jury fo un d St ep p- Zafft gu il ty on al l th ree co un ts

.

On ap pe al
, St ep p- Za f

ft co nt en ds th at th e reg is tra ti on req ui rem en t

un co ns ti tu ti on al ly in fri ng es on a Seco nd Am en dm en t rig ht to po ss es s th e sh or tThe Hon or ab le Karen E. Sch rei er, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1 of So ut h Dak ot a, im

po se d se nt en ce. The Hon or ab le Lawren ce L. Pi ers ol pr es id ed

ov er St ep p- Zafft ’s tri al

.
-2

-ba rrel ed rif

le s and ho m em ad e si le nc ers fo un d i n h is ap art m en t. H e al so arg ue s th at Co ng res s la ck ed au th or it y to en act th e reg is tra ti on st at ut e. St ep p- Zafft di d no t rai se th es e arg um en ts in a pr et ria l m ot io n t o d is m is s t he in di ct m en t, se e Fed . R. Cri m . P

. 12 (b )(3 )(B)
, or at an y ot he r ti m e in th e di st ric t co ur t. W e ha ve sa id th at a pa rty m us t sh ow “ go od cau se ” to rai se an al le ge d de fect in th e in di ct m en t fo r th e fir st ti m e on
ap pe al
, se e Uni te d St at es v. And er so n , 78 3 F.3 d 72 7, 74 1 (8 t h C i r

. 20 15 ), bu t th e
go ve rn m en t do es no t rai se th at po in t an d co nc ed es in st ead th at we sh ou ld rev ie w fo r
p l a i n erro r. Und er th at ru br ic
, St ep p- Zafft m us t sh ow an erro r th at is “ cl ea r o r ob vi ou s, rat he r th an su bjec t to reas on ab le di sp ut e,” Puc ket t v. Uni te d St at es , 55 6 U.S.
12 9, 13 5 (2 00 9) , a nd m

us t de m on st rat e th at th e erro r affe ct ed hi s su bs ta nt ia l r i g ht s

an d se rio us ly affe ct ed th e fai rn es s, in te gr it y , or rep ut at io n of th e jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs

. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v. Ol an o , 50 7 U.S. 7 25 , 73 4- 36 (19 93 ).

St ep p- Zafft fir st arg ue s th at 26 U.S.C. § 58 61 (d ) un co ns ti tu ti on al ly bu rd en s a Seco nd Am en dm en t rig ht to po ss es s sh or t-b arre le d rif l e s a n d si le nc ers

. In Dis tr ic t of C o l u m b i a v

. Hell er , 55 4 U.S. 57 0 (2 00 8)
, th e Co ur t ex pl ai ne d th at th e Seco nd
Am en dm en t rig ht to ke ep an d be ar arm s ex te nd s to weap on s th at are in “ co m m on

us e” an d “ typic al ly po ss es se d by la w-ab id in g ci ti zen s fo r la wfu l pu rp os es ” li ke se lfde fen se

. Id

. at 6 24 -2 5. St ep p- Zafft cl ai m s th at sh or t-b arre le d rifl es are in co m m on

us e fo r la wfu l pu rp os es , bu t he ci te s no au th or it y in su pp or t of th at vi ew. Hell er sa id th at th ere is no Seco nd Am en dm en t rig ht to po ss es s a sh or t-b arre le d sh ot gu n , 55 4 U.S. at 62 4; se e al

so Uni te d St at es v. Mil le r , 30 7 U.S. 17 4, 17 8 (1 93 9)
, an d a pl ur al it y of th e Co ur t pr ev io us ly ob se rv ed in a di ffer en t co nt ex t th at a sh or t-b arre le d rif le is a

“ co nc eal ab le weap on ” th at is “ li ke ly to be us ed fo r cri m in al pu rp os es .” Uni te d St at es

v. Th omp so n/

Cen te r Arms Co

. , 50 4 U.S. 50 5, 51 7 (1 99 2) (p lu ral it y op in io n)

. Oth er

co ur ts ha ve se en no co ns ti tu ti on al di st in ct io n be twee n sh or t-b arre le d sh ot gu ns an d rif le s in th e wak e of Hell er

. Se e, e.g

. , Uni te d St at es v. Gil be rt , 28 6 F. App ’x 38 3, 38 6 (9 th Ci r. 20 08 ) ; U

n i t e d S ta te s v. Co x , 23 5 F. Su pp

. 3d 12 21
, 12 27 (D. Kan

. 20 17 );
Uni te d St at es v

. Gon za le s , No. 2: 10 -cr- 00 96 7, 20 11 W L 52 88 72 7, at *6 (D. Utah
Nov

. 2, 20 11 ). The qu es ti on is no t p res en te d fo r de no vo rev ie w in th is cas e, so we

-3

-n e ed no t ag ree or di sa gr ee wit h th es e de ci si on s of ot he r co ur ts , bu t St ep p- Zafft ’s

co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m is at le as t su bjec t to reas on ab le di sp ut e. The di st ric t co ur t di d no t

m ak e an ob vi ou s er ro r by fail in g t o d is m is s t he ch arg e su a s po nt e

.

St ep p- Zafft al so co nt en d s t h a t th e Seco nd Am en dm en t gu aran te es a rig ht to
po ss es s un reg is te red si le nc ers

. He ci te s no su pp or ti ng au th or it y , ho wev er, an d so m e

co ur ts aft er H

e l l e r h a v e reject ed hi s po si ti on on th e gr ou nd th at si le nc ers are no t typic al ly p os se ss e d b y l aw-ab id in g ci ti zen s fo r la wfu l pu rp os es

. Se e Uni te d St at es

v. McCa rt ne

y , 35 7 F. App ’x 73
, 76 (9 th C i r

. 20 09 ); Co x , 23 5 F. Su pp

. 3d at 12 27 ; Uni te d St at es v. Perk in s , No. 4: 08 CR3 06 4, 20 08 W L 43 72 82 1, at *4 (D. Neb

. Sep t. 23
, 20 08 ). St ep p- Zafft arg ue s on ap pe al th at si le nc ers are us ed la wfu ll y fo r ta r g e t
pr act ic e an d fo r co ll ect io n as ex ot ic w e a p o n s

. He reas on s th at th e la rg e nu m be r of

reg is te red si le nc ers sh ows th at m os t pe op le us e th em fo r ha rm le ss act iv it ie s. Bu t be cau se he di d no t rai se th is ch al le ng e in th e di st ric t co ur t, th e pa rti es di d no t pr es en t

ev id en ce on th e pu rp os es an d co m m on us es of si le nc ers

. Aga i n , t h e co ns ti tu ti on al

qu es ti on is no t pr es en te d fo r de no vo rev ie w he re, bu t th e cl ai m is at le as t su bjec t to

reas on ab le di sp ut e in li gh t of ex is ti ng au th or it ie s an d th e un de ve lo pe d reco rd in th is

cas e. The di st ric t co ur t di d no t c om m it a pl ai n erro r by de cl in in g to di sm is s th e ch arg e o n i ts own m ot io n.

St ep p- Zafft ne xt as se rts th at Co ng res s la ck ed au th or it y to en act th e reg is tra ti on
st at ut e un de r ei th er th e Co m m erce Cl au se , U.S. Co ns t. art

. I, § 8, cl

. 3, or th e Tax in g Cl au se , U.S. Co ns t. art

. I, § 8, cl

. 1. W e ha ve he ld
, ho wev er, th at Co ng res s pr op erl y

e n a c te d th e st at ut e un de r th e ta xi ng po wer. Uni te d St at es v. Hal l
, 17 1 F.3 d 1 1 3 3
, 11 42 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ). St ep p- Zafft co mp l a i n s th at th e reg is tra ti on st at ut e se rv es no le gi ti m at e rev en ue -rai si ng pu rp os e, an d is th us be y on d th e ta xi ng po wer, be cau se th e
st at ut e do es no t pe rm it a “ m ere po ss es so r” to reg is te r a fir earm an d pa y th e req ui si te
ta x. Bu t Hal l reject ed th is pr eci se arg um en t, co nc lu di ng th at th e st at ut e is “ in ai d of

a rev en ue pu rp o s e , ” id

. (q uo ti ng So nz in sk y v. Uni te d St at es , 30 0 U.S. 50 6, 51 3 (1 93 7) ), be cau se it he lp s th e go ve rn m en t to id en ti fy th e m ak er li ab le fo r th e ta x, an d

-4

-en co ur ag es m ak ers of fir earm s to reg is te r th em an d to pa y th e rel ev an t ta x so th at

po te nt ia l pu rch as ers can la wfu ll y acce pt th em

. St ep p- Zafft al so su gg es ts th at NFIB

v. Se be li us , 56 7 U.S. 51 9 (2 01 2)
, na rro wed Co ng res s’s ta xi ng po wer an d su pe rs ed ed Hal l

. Bu t NFIB up he ld an Act of Co ng res s ba se d on th e ta xi ng po wer, id

. at 57 4, an d

no t h i ng in th at de ci si on ob vi ou sl y un de rm in es ou r rel ev an t pr eced en t. The di st ric t

co ur t t he refo re co m

m it te d n o p la in erro r.

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-5

-