Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1411

Filed 10/11/16

Page 1 of 4

BILLY J. WILLIAMS, OSB #901366

United States Attorney
District of Oregon
ETHAN D. KNIGHT, OSB #992984
GEOFFREY A. BARROW
CRAIG J. GABRIEL, OSB #012571
Assistant United States Attorneys
ethan.knight@usdoj.gov
geoffrey.barrow@usdoj.gov
craig.gabriel@usdoj.gov
1000 SW Third Ave., Suite 600
Portland, OR 97204-2902
Telephone: (503) 727-1000
Attorneys for United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
AMMON BUNDY, et al.,

3:16-CR-00051-BR
GOVERNMENTS OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT AMMON BUNDYS
SUPPLEMENTAL REQUESTED
JURY INSTRUCTIONS (#1401)

Defendants.
The United States of America, by Billy J. Williams, United States Attorney for the
District of Oregon, and through Ethan D. Knight, Geoffrey A. Barrow, and Craig J. Gabriel,
Assistant United States Attorneys, hereby submits this opposition to Defendant Ammon Bundys
Second Supplemental Brief on Jury Instructions (ECF No. 1401), filed on behalf of the
September 7, 2016, trial defendants.
The government opposes defendant Ammon Bundys supplemental requested jury
instructions (ECF #1401).

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1411

Filed 10/11/16

Page 2 of 4

First, defendant seeks to add language appearing in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554
U.S. 570 (2008) that the Constitution was written to be understood by ordinary citizens.
cited principle is taken out of context.

The

The Supreme Court relied on that principle in deciding

whether a local ordinance banning handgun ownership in citizens own homes violated the
Second Amendment.

It is a principle of textual construction that has no bearing on a criminal

defendants intent to commit a crime.

Moreover, to the extent defendant wants to include this

citation to suggest that the founding fathers endorsed his interpretation of the United States
Constitution, it is an incorrect statement of the law.

The founding fathers intent in drafting the

Second Amendment is not an issue in this case.

Second, defendant seeks to insert selected tidbits from D.C. v. Heller so the jury will be
instructed that defendants Second Amendment rights include the right to participate in a
citizens militia, and that their right to possess firearms for purposes of confrontation includes
the right to possess firearms for the purpose of resisting tyranny and usurpations of power by
the federal government.

That instruction would grossly misstate the law.

The Heller decision addressed an entirely distinct question unrelated to the issues in this
case; the Court held that the District of Columbias statute banning handgun possession in the
home violated the Second Amendment.

The government tyranny at issue in that case

involved the states attempt to regulate gun possession in a manner that, according to the Court,
contravened the Second Amendment.

The Court held that the Constitution recognized

individual rights having nothing whatever to do with service in a militia. Id. at 593.

The

Court made clear, however, that its holding was not to be read as a sweeping endorsement of the

Governments Opposition to Defendant Ammon Bundys Supplemental

Requested Jury Instructions (#1401)

Page 2

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1411

Filed 10/11/16

Page 3 of 4

proposition that citizens may carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the
First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.
in original).

Id. at 595 (emphasis

In fact, the Court specifically exempted from its holding those statutes prohibiting

the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of
firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings. Id. (emphasis added).
The language defendant seeks to insert into this Courts jury instructions suggests that the
law endorses his view of the Constitution (which it does not) and further, that the law would
suborn the notion that citizens could use firearms to terrorize public officials with impunity.
Defendant is not entitled to jury instructions that misstate the law.
Moreover, even if defendant had accurately cited Heller, he would not be entitled to an
instruction that quotes from that case.

The Ninth Circuit recognizes that the formulation of jury

instructions lies within this Courts wide discretion, granting latitude to fashion the instructions
as appropriate. United States v. Hicks, 217 F.3d 1038, 1045 (9th Cir. 2000).

A defendant is

not entitled to an instruction of his own choosing, even when his proffered instruction quotes
case law. United States v. Hofus, 598 F.3d 1171, 1174 (9th Cir. 2010).
///
///
///
///
///
///

Governments Opposition to Defendant Ammon Bundys Supplemental

Requested Jury Instructions (#1401)

Page 3

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1411

Filed 10/11/16

Page 4 of 4

In conclusion, defendant Ammon Bundys requested supplemental jury instructions (ECF

#1401) should be denied.
Dated this 11th day of October 2016.
Respectfully submitted,
BILLY J. WILLIAMS
United States Attorney

s/ Ethan D. Knight
ETHAN D. KNIGHT, OSB #992984
GEOFFREY A. BARROW
CRAIG J. GABRIEL, OSB #012571
Assistant United States Attorneys

Governments Opposition to Defendant Ammon Bundys Supplemental

Requested Jury Instructions (#1401)

Page 4