But his defense team says the federal government violated his Second Amendment rights by charging him under a law that restricts firearm possession and transportation by individuals facing felony indictments.
The case has now reached the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, where a recent Supreme Court ruling involving marijuana and gun ownership has become a major part of the debate.
And one judge appeared particularly skeptical of the defense’s reasoning.
A Terrifying Scene Unfolded Outside CIA Headquarters
On March 19, 2025, authorities responded to a disturbing situation near the main entrance of CIA headquarters along Route 123 in McLean, Virginia.
A man was sitting on a bench outside the facility with a handgun pointed at his own head.
That man was later identified as Scofield.
According to federal court documents, surveillance cameras captured him directing his weapon toward the CIA property and discharging four rounds.
The incident immediately triggered a major security response.
CIA headquarters was placed under lockdown while Fairfax County negotiators worked to resolve the confrontation.
After several hours of negotiations, Scofield finally surrendered to authorities.
Fortunately, nobody was struck by the gunfire.
But investigators soon discovered that the confrontation was only part of a much larger story.
Scofield was already facing criminal proceedings in another state.
And federal prosecutors believe his journey to Virginia involved several deliberate steps.
Prosecutors Say Scofield Transported a Gun Across State Lines
Before the CIA incident, Scofield had already attracted the attention of law enforcement in the Pacific Northwest.
He had a controlled substance conviction in Washington state dating back to December 2023.
Then, in February 2025, Oregon authorities indicted him on a felony charge involving firearm possession.
That pending indictment would become crucial to the federal case against him.
Prosecutors allege that Scofield subsequently disassembled a handgun and shipped its components from Washington state to a hostel in Washington, D.C.
After arriving in the nation’s capital, he allegedly retrieved the package and put the weapon back together.
Investigators say he also purchased ammunition in Maryland.
His next destination was CIA headquarters.
Federal authorities charged Scofield under 18 U.S.C. § 922(n), which prohibits individuals under felony indictment from shipping, transporting, or receiving firearms in interstate or foreign commerce.
Unlike laws restricting gun ownership after a felony conviction, this provision applies while a qualifying criminal charge remains pending.
Scofield’s attorneys believe that distinction creates a constitutional problem.
Defense Attorney Makes an Argument That Caught the Judges’ Attention
On October 28, 2026, Scofield’s appeal came before a three-judge panel in Richmond, Virginia.
The judges included Julius Richardson, appointed by President Donald Trump; Robert King, appointed by President Bill Clinton; and Henry Floyd, appointed by President Barack Obama.
Assistant Federal Public Defender Sam Mancina argued that the underlying Oregon indictment should not automatically strip his client of the constitutional protections afforded to gun owners.
“My client’s indictment is still a non-violent offense. It’s just a mere possession offense,” Mancina told the court.
The attorney also suggested that Oregon’s firearm statute was written broadly enough to encompass antique weapons.
But Richardson focused on something much more immediate.
Scofield was not merely accused of possessing a firearm.
He was accused of firing it toward one of America’s most sensitive intelligence facilities.
When the judge raised those allegations, Mancina responded:
“Those are the allegations”
The defense maintained that the relevant indictment involved firearm possession rather than a violent offense.
That distinction became one of the central disputes during the hearing.
Supreme Court Marijuana Case Becomes an Unlikely Defense Strategy
Perhaps the most surprising aspect of Scofield’s appeal is his reliance on a Supreme Court decision involving marijuana use.
In June 2026, the Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Hemani, a case concerning federal restrictions on firearm possession by unlawful drug users.
The ruling favored a Texas marijuana user who had challenged the government’s application of those restrictions.
Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned whether marijuana consumption necessarily presents dangers comparable to those associated with other illegal substances.
But Gorsuch also emphasized that the decision was “a narrow one.”
The Supreme Court did not establish an unrestricted right for dangerous individuals to possess firearms.
Instead, it left unresolved important questions about whether the government may temporarily disarm people who demonstrate a threat to themselves or others.
Scofield’s attorneys argue that the decision supports a more individualized approach to Second Amendment restrictions.
Richardson appeared unconvinced that the circumstances were comparable.
The judge observed that the Supreme Court had examined the specific behavior of the defendant in Hemani, including his reported marijuana use.
That approach, Richardson suggested, could make Scofield’s situation particularly difficult.
“The specific conduct here is he’s in a parking lot and he’s firing his gun,” Richardson said.
He acknowledged that the incident did not result in anyone being shot.
But he added that “that doesn’t feel like a sort of happy-go-lucky story.”
The judge then delivered another pointed observation.
“When we start looking at his particular conduct, I don’t know, seems like you got a difficult story,” Richardson said.
Those comments highlighted the challenge facing Scofield’s defense: convincing the court that the constitutional analysis should focus on the pending possession charge rather than the alarming conduct alleged outside CIA headquarters.
Second Amendment Showdown Could Have Broader Consequences
The appeal comes as federal courts continue wrestling with the limits of government authority over firearm ownership.
The Supreme Court’s landmark 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller recognized an individual constitutional right to possess a handgun for lawful purposes, including self-defense inside the home.
Then came New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen in 2022.
That decision required the government to justify firearm regulations by demonstrating consistency with America’s historical tradition of gun regulation.
The ruling prompted constitutional challenges to numerous federal and state gun restrictions.
One of those challenges involved the same federal statute at issue in Scofield’s case.
A federal judge in Texas initially ruled that § 922(n) was unconstitutional in a prosecution involving Jose Gomez Quiroz.
However, the Fifth Circuit reversed that decision in January 2025.
The appeals court concluded that the restriction was compatible with historical practices allowing authorities to impose restraints on individuals facing serious criminal accusations.
The judges pointed to founding-era legal procedures, including bail proceedings associated with Aaron Burr’s treason prosecution.
Another major precedent arrived in 2024.
In United States v. Rahimi, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that someone judicially determined to present a credible threat to another person’s safety “may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.”
That decision reinforced the principle that the right to keep and bear arms is constitutionally protected but not entirely without limits.
The Fourth Circuit has also addressed other contentious firearm restrictions.
In 2024, the full court upheld Maryland’s prohibition on certain semiautomatic firearms in Bianchi v. Brown.
The Supreme Court declined to take up that case the following year.
Together, these decisions have created an evolving legal landscape for judges evaluating Second Amendment challenges.
Federal Appeals Court Now Faces a Major Decision
The immediate question is whether federal prosecutors can continue pursuing Scofield under the law restricting firearm transactions by individuals already facing felony indictments.
His lawyers contend that the constitutional protections recognized in recent Supreme Court decisions undermine the government’s position.
Federal prosecutors disagree.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Reed Sawyers questioned whether the Hemani decision resolved the dangerousness issues central to the appeal.
And Richardson’s questions suggested that Scofield’s alleged actions outside CIA headquarters could become an important obstacle to his constitutional challenge.
Still, questions from the bench do not necessarily predict how a court will ultimately rule.
If the appellate panel accepts Scofield’s argument, the matter would return to the district court for further proceedings.
If the judges reject his challenge, the disputed indictment will remain in place.
As of November 1, 2026, the panel has not issued its decision.
The outcome could add another significant ruling to the growing body of Second Amendment litigation following Bruen and Rahimi.
At the heart of the dispute is a difficult constitutional question: How far can the federal government go in restricting firearm rights before someone has been convicted of the felony underlying those restrictions?
For Scofield, that question is being tested against allegations that he fired four rounds toward CIA headquarters.
And the judges must decide how the Constitution applies when a defendant’s claimed gun rights collide with serious public-safety concerns.
