Montana Gun Free School Zone Case: Oral Arguements in Ninth Circuit Appeal

Vivian and Gabriel’s modest home in Billings, Montana 

In the Ninth Circuit appeals case of USA v. Metcalf, the oral arguments were held on June 12, 2025, in Portland, Oregon. The case centers around the federal prosecution of Gabriel Metcalf possessing a firearm in a Gun Free School Zone outside his home in Billings, Montana. Gabriel had no prior criminal history.

The attorneys arguing the case were the same as in Montana. The Federal defender arguing for Gabriel Metcalf was/is Russel Hart. The Federal prosecutor was/is Thomas Godfrey. The three judge panel in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit consists of Judge Mary M. Schroeder (Carter appointee) , Judge John B. Owens (Obama appointee), and Judge Lawrence Vandyke (Trump appointee).

The oral arguments lasted 38 minutes. The judges in the case were particularly interested in whether the case of Rehaif v. United States was a precedent which was binding in the Metcalf case. In Rehaif, the Supreme Court ruled the prosecution had to show the defendant knew he was in violation of the law. In the Metcalf case, Gabriel Metcalf had been repeatedly told he was not in violation of the law, and had called the FBI to ask for assistance, believing he was being harassed by local law enforcement.

The prosecution claimed Metcalf had been told he was in violation of federal law. The defense countered with the observation the day Metcalf was arrested, there was an article in the paper where a local police chief said Metcalf had not done anything they could arrest him for, so the police were going to talk to federal officials.

Much of the oral arguments focused on whether Metcalf reasonably knew he was in violation of the federal gun free school zone law, and whether he was required to know he was in violation in order to be found guilty under the law.

The judges were applying the principle that, if the case could be resolved without determining whether the law violated the Constitution, the case should be resolved at the lower level. There was considerable discussion as to whether the Montana law which granted a license to all who were not prohibited from owning weapons met the standard required for an exception in the federal law.

The prosecution claimed Metcalf had serious mental issues. The defense countered with facts about the order of protection violations by Metcalf’s neighbor. The defense made clear the neighbor was convicted of a felony violation. Metcalf and his mother complained of continuing violations. Billings police had instructed  Metcalf and his mother about the necessity of gathering video evidence of such order of protection violations.

At the end of oral arguments, the judges ordered the attorneys to submit briefs, of no more than 10 pages, addressing the impact, if any, of the Rahaif case. The briefs are due within 14 days.

Analysis:  The Gun Free School Zone Act was found to be unconstitutional in 1995, in US v. Lopez. Minor changes to the law were made in 1996-1997. The changing of twelve words have been found to be sufficient to make the act constitutional in six circuit courts of appeal, including the Ninth Circuit. Three circuit courts of appeal have found the change to have been insufficient. Those are the First, Third, and Eleventh Circuits. Previous challenges have been under the interstate commerce clause. Two current challenges to the law under the Second Amendment are the Gabriel Metcalf case in the Ninth Circuit and the Ahmed Allam case in the Fifth Circuit.

©2025 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch