The federal government has made it a crime for any person who has been convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” to ship or transport or possess any firearm or ammunition or receive any firearm or ammunition that has been shipped or transported. 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9).
To be convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic assault under Minnesota law, the State must prove the person:
1) Committed an act with intent to cause fear in another of immediate bodily harm or death; or,
2) Intentionally inflicted or attempted to inflict bodily harm upon another.
Minn. Stat. 609.2242.
However, the federal government defines a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” to include any offense that:
1) Is a misdemeanor under Federal, State, or Tribal law; and
2) Has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabitating with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim.
18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(A).
The difference between the two definitions is that Minnesota’s definition of misdemeanor domestic assault includes the “intent to cause fear” subsection, which is not included within the federal definition.
In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held in United States v. Larson, 13 Fed. Appx. 439 (8hh Cir. 2001), that a conviction for misdemeanor domestic assault under Minnesota law, where it was unclear whether the conviction was based on the “fear” or actual “harm” subdivision, was not enough to serve as an underlying offense to disqualify the defendant under the federal firearms statute.
And in 2004, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota found in United States v. Brun, 2004 WL 234401 (D. Minn. 2004), that the record was not clear which subdivision the defendant had been convicted upon, and since the “fear” subdivision did not apply to the federal law, the court declined to apply the federal firearms ban to the defendant.