Montana PFMA & Gun Ownership: Key Ninth Circuit Update

If you’ve ever wondered “Can I own a gun with a PFMA conviction in Montana?”, a recent ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals might pique your interest. In United States v. DeFrance, the court reversed a federal firearms conviction for a defendant previously convicted of Partner or Family Member Assault (PFMA) under Montana law. This decision has prompted new discussions about the intersection of domestic violence charges, firearms rights, and Montana criminal defense.

Below, I break down the key points of the ruling, how PFMA is defined under Montana law, and what this could mean for anyone facing—or who has faced—similar allegations.

---

What Is PFMA Under Montana Law?

Under Montana Code Annotated § 45-5-206, a person commits the offense of Partner or Family Member Assault if they (1) A person commits the offense of partner or family member assault if the person:

• (a) purposely or knowingly causes bodily injury to a partner or family member;
• (b) negligently causes bodily injury to a partner or family member with a weapon; or
• (c) purposely or knowingly causes reasonable apprehension of bodily injury in a partner or family member.

The law defines “bodily injury” to include physical pain, illness, or impairment—and notably, mental illness or impairment. This broader definition of “bodily injury” is important. Unlike many other states where “domestic assault” strictly involves physical harm, Montana’s statute also covers mental harm.

---

Key Takeaways from the United States v. DeFrance Decision

1. Conviction Reversal
   The Ninth Circuit reversed the defendant’s conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9). This federal law typically forbids anyone convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” from owning or possessing a firearm.
2. Why the Reversal?
   The federal statute defines “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” as requiring the use (or attempted use) of physical force. Because Montana’s PFMA statute can be violated by causing emotional harm rather than strictly physical force, the Ninth Circuit found it too broad to qualify as a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.”
3. Categorical Approach
   In reaching its decision, the court applied what’s known as the “categorical approach.” Instead of looking at what actually happened in a specific case, courts examine whether the elements of the statute as written always match the federal definition. Here, they concluded that PFMA extends beyond purely physical force, making it ineligible as a federal firearm-disqualifying offense under § 922(g)(9).
   • Two of the judges noted in concurrences that they disagreed with the categorical approach because it leads to counterintuitive results like this one. But because the Supreme Court of the United States mandates the categorical approach, they have no choice but to follow it.
4. Implications for Gun Rights
   This ruling is particularly significant in Montana, given that PFMA has historically been treated as a qualifying misdemeanor crime for federal firearms restrictions. After DeFrance, defendants convicted under PFMA (section 45-5-206(1)(a)) may argue they are not automatically banned from possessing firearms under the federal statute.

---

“Can I Own a Gun With a PFMA Conviction in Montana?”

This is the question on many Montanans’ minds after the DeFrance decision. While the Ninth Circuit opinion signals that a PFMA conviction might not automatically disqualify someone from owning or possessing a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), the matter is still complicated. Here are a few things to consider:

• Other Legal Barriers
  Even if PFMA is not considered a qualifying offense for the federal firearm ban, there may be other state or federal laws that still restrict firearm ownership (e.g., felony convictions, other disqualifying misdemeanors, restraining orders).
• Montana State vs. Federal Law
  Federal law supersedes state law. Even if Montana statute appears broader, how federal authorities interpret firearm restrictions can differ. Always verify your status under both federal and state regulations.
• Legal Updates Likely
  This area of law could continue to evolve. Courts and legislatures might respond to the DeFrance decision, potentially clarifying or amending statutes related to domestic violence convictions and firearm prohibitions. Indeed, the concurring opinions directly state that the ruling could be altered by (1) the Montana Supreme Court subsequently interpreting the PFMA statute and the definition bodily injury differently; (2) the United States Congress amending 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9); or (3) the Supreme Court overruling its categorical approach precedent.

---

Why This Case Matters for Montana Criminal Defense

1. Greater Defense Strategy Options: If you’re facing a PFMA charge, your defense attorney can analyze whether the charge (or a potential conviction) truly fits the federal definition of “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” and how it may affect your firearm rights.
2. Potential Relief from Federal Firearm Bans: Those previously convicted of PFMA might be able to argue that their conviction does not meet the federal standard. However, any firearm possession or purchase attempt should be approached with extreme caution—violations can lead to serious federal charges.
3. Highlighting Overbroad Statutes: This case underscores that Montana’s definition of bodily injury in domestic settings can be broader than the definitions in many other jurisdictions. Legislative changes or additional court rulings may follow.

---

Facing a PFMA Charge or Concerned About Your Rights?

If you or someone you know has a Montana PFMA conviction and is unsure about gun ownership rights, it is crucial to seek legal advice.

*Disclaimer: This blog post is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this information does not create an attorney-client relationship with Murnion Law. You should consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction regarding the specifics of your situation.