United States v. Tanner Garrison

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
• Decided: December 9, 2024
• Docket: 24-5455
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 24a0507n.06

No. 24-5455

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Dec 09, 2024 KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ON APPEAL FROM THE ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT v. ) COURT FOR THE WESTERN ) DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE TANNER GARRISON, ) ) OPINION Defendant-Appellant. )

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 No. 24-5455, United States v. Garrison

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

-2- No. 24-5455, United States v. Garrison

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,

-3- No. 24-5455, United States v. Garrison

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.

-4-