United States of America v. Marcos Ortiz Hatfield

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARCOS ORTIZ HATFIELD,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-50194
D.C. No. 3:08-cr-02933-MLH
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Marcos Ortiz Hatfield appeals from the district court’s order denying his
motion to dismiss the indictment. Following the district court’s denial of his
motion to dismiss the indictment, Hatfield pled guilty to one count of felony
FILED
APR 16 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-50194 2
possession of an unregistered firearm, in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5861(d) and
5871. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Hatfield contends that his possession of a sawed-off shotgun was protected
under the Second Amendment because he had a lawful purpose in possessing the
shotgun. He also contends that the Second Amendment protects possession of a
sawed-off shotgun because a sawed-off shotgun resembles a blunderbuss, a short-
barreled, muzzle-loading firearm used around the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification. These contentions fail because modern sawed-off
shotguns are not typically possessed for lawful purposes and constitute “dangerous
and unusual weapons,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2817
(2008), beyond the scope of the Second Amendment’s protection. See Heller, 128
S. Ct. at 2815-16 (stating that Second Amendment’s protection does not extend to
“weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes”);
see also United States v. Serna, 435 F.3d 1046, 1048 (9th Cir. 2006) (stating that
sawed-off shotguns “have few, if any, legitimate uses”); United States v. Hayes,
7 F.3d 144, 145 (9th Cir. 1993) (stating that “sawed-off shotguns are inherently
dangerous, lack usefulness except for violent and criminal purposes and their
possession involves the substantial risk of improper physical force”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --