Steven William Eng v. State of Alaska, et al.

Anchorage, Alaska civil rights lawyer represented the Plaintiff seeking to buy a gun.

After Plaintiff was unable to buy a gun because a background check revealed he was subject to a long-term domestic violence protective order, the man sued the State. He claimed that he was no longer subject to a protective order as defined by federal statute, and sought a permanent injunction and declaratory judgment that the Department of Public Safety (DPS) notify a national database that he was no longer subject to a protective order under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8). He then filed a motion for summary judgment; the State opposed and filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. The superior court granted the State's cross-motion. The man appeals. We affirm the superior court's decision.





In 2013 Steven Eng's ex-wife petitioned for a long-term domestic violence protective order (DVPO) against him. Eng received notice of the petition and participated in a contested hearing. The superior court granted the petition. The court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Eng committed or attempted to commit assault or reckless endangerment against his ex-wife. The court also found that Eng "represents a credible threat to the physical safety of petitioner," citing 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)(C)(i) of the Brady Act.[1] Finally, the court found that Eng was in possession of a firearm during the commission of domestic violence, citing AS 18.66.100(c) subsections (6) and (7).



* * *



Eng v. State, Alaska Dep't of Pub. Safety, S-18257 (Alaska Oct 25, 2024)

Affirmed