This Note concludes that, although the court in United States v. Hutzell reached the correct holding, the court's analysis is not of sufficient depth and clarity to be truly convincing. In leading up to such a conclusion, this Note begins by detailing the due process exception set forth by the Supreme Court in Lambert v. California. The Note then looks at cases dealing with a similar due process issue regarding 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which makes possession of firearms unlawful for persons against whom a domestic violence protection order is in effect. Such cases are important because many of them are discussed and relied upon in the cases that the Hutzell court cites in support of its holding. Next, this Note turns to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) and the few cases that have dealt with the issue at stake in Hutzell. Then, the Note discusses Hutzell in detail, making clear the court's reasoning. Finally, in Part III, this Note examines the shortcomings of the Hutzell opinion and suggests a more in-depth and convincing analysis.
Brian E. Sobczyk,
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) and the Lambert Due Process Exception Requiring Actual Knowledge of the Law: United States v. Hutzell, 217 F.3d 966 (8th Cir. 2000),
80 Neb. L. Rev.
Available at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol80/iss1/5