United States of America V Matthew Raymond Hoover
United States of America V Matthew Raymond Hoover
CASE №: 3:21-cr22(S2)-MMH-MCR
v.
Supreme Court’s recent decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., et al.
v. Bruen, 597 U.S. __ (slip op., 2022), respectfully supplements his Motion to
Dismiss Counts 1 – 7 of the Indictment (ECF 57) against him. This Motion is
based on the aforementioned Motion and its attachments; the Supreme Court’s
recent decision; and the text of the Constitution, as informed by the history
and tradition of the United States. In support of this Motion, Defendant hereby
states:
a license and demonstration of “proper cause” for the possession and carrying
1
Case 3:21-cr-00022-MMH-MCR Document 101 Filed 07/01/22 Page 2 of 9 PageID 579
standard for the evaluation of acts regulating the peaceable keeping and
combines history with means-ends scrutiny”, the Court correctly identified this
as “one step too many[.]” Id. *9-10. Those previous decisions at the various
clearly contemplating the keeping and bearing of arms as beyond the scope of
the Second Amendment. Id. *14 (reading case law to “necessarily reject[]”
burdens in a case involving restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. It
is, as artfully penned by the Court, “when the Second Amendment’s plain text
firearms regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s
2
Case 3:21-cr-00022-MMH-MCR Document 101 Filed 07/01/22 Page 3 of 9 PageID 580
“right of the people to keep and bear arms,” U.S. CONST., Amend. II, can only
contemporaneous with the adoption of the Bill of Rights in 1791. Bruen, 597
U.S. at *29.
conspiracy to commit those offenses. The charged statutes deal with the
What’s more, actions subsequent to the passage of the charged firearm statutes
render it impossible to comply with the taxing provisions, thus leaving the
statutes a bizarre, vestigial area of law passed pursuant to the taxing power
3
Case 3:21-cr-00022-MMH-MCR Document 101 Filed 07/01/22 Page 4 of 9 PageID 581
“dangerous and unusual,” as it has in other cases, but this is not the test. The
extant policy. Bruen, 597 U.S. at *12 (Clarifying that the Court was not
undertaking “an exhaustive historical analysis…of the full scope of the Second
Amendment”) (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 627). Rather, the only way a court
may conclude Defendant’s conduct falls outside the scope of the Second
prove the particular regime in question is consistent with the history and
a weapon is “in common use at the time,” necessarily pins the analysis to the
use, because the Government prohibited them. Such circular logic would be
Government has the burden to prove that the regime in question is consistent
4
Case 3:21-cr-00022-MMH-MCR Document 101 Filed 07/01/22 Page 5 of 9 PageID 582
with the history and tradition of firearms regulation in this country around the
founding era.
the enactment of the laws here at issue. In addition to the previously raised
United States supports the categorical ban of machineguns, much less the item
decision that the tchotchke at issue—a stainless steel card with some lines
administrative fiat, absent even notice and comment. Our Nation’s history and
tradition does not, and cannot, support a finding that an alleged drawing of a
to be. To hold otherwise would be to grant the Bureau more power than
Congress could have ever granted it, and make innumerable items potentially
illegal. See Bruen, 597 U.S. at *19-20 (“Like all analogical reasoning,
but Defendant here proffers more modern evidence that a categorical ban on
MR. LEWIS: I hope the courts will find no doubt on a subject like this,
General; but I was curious to know how we escaped that provision in the
Constitution.
it. We are dealing with another power, namely, the power of taxation,
involved. But when you say “We will tax the machine gun” and when you
say that "the absence of a license showing payment of the tax has been
made indicates that a crime has been perpetrated", you are easily within
the law.
MR. LEWIS: In other words, it does not amount to prohibition, but allows
of regulation.
6
Case 3:21-cr-00022-MMH-MCR Document 101 Filed 07/01/22 Page 7 of 9 PageID 584
National Firearms Act: Hearings before the Committee on Ways and Means,
posits that the then-Attorney General, advancing the very law whose
could somehow prove to the Court that the wholesale felonization of the
“unqualified command” of the Second Amendment, plus the clear metes of the
First, that could justify such a prosecution. Should any exist, the Government
bears the burden to prove it. Bruen at *15 (“Only then may a court conclude
7
Case 3:21-cr-00022-MMH-MCR Document 101 Filed 07/01/22 Page 8 of 9 PageID 585
II. CONCLUSION
The command of the Second Amendment is clear. Under Bruen,
consistent with the text of the Constitution and the history and tradition of our
Great Nation, it stands to reason that any regulation affecting the peaceable
alleges an arm may one day be made from—warrants meaningful review. The
Hoover—a patriotic American and father who stands accused of talking about
a piece of metal with lines drawn on it and faces the complete destruction of
his life and livelihood therefrom—demonstrates the severity with which this
8
Case 3:21-cr-00022-MMH-MCR Document 101 Filed 07/01/22 Page 9 of 9 PageID 586
moves this Honorable Court to dismiss the Indictment (ECF 57) against him
in its entity with prejudice, to declare the National Firearms Act facially
Defendant, and for any further relief that this Court deems just and proper.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
________________________
Zachary Z. Zermay, Esq.