18 U.S.C. § 922

Section 922(g)(4)'s prohibition on firearm possession by a person committed to a mental institution survives a Second Amendment challenge under Heller.

United States v. McRobie · filed 2009-01-14(g)(4)

McRobie’s final claim of error founders on the very case upon which it relies. While the Heller opinion recognized a Second Amendment right for citizens to bear arms, it specifically cautioned that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill.” Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2816-17.

Section 922(k)’s prohibition on possessing a firearm with an obliterated serial number survives an as-applied Second Amendment challenge because it places only a minimal burden on lawful gun possession.

United States v. Marzzarella · filed 2009-01-14(k)

In sum, I see nothing in the Supreme Court’s recent decision in District of Columbia v. Heller that would compel the conclusion that 18 U.S.C. § 922(k), as applied in this case, is unconstitutional. ... Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the Defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment will be denied.

Section 922(g) withstands a constitutional challenge based on Heller under controlling Fifth Circuit precedent.

United States v. Moore · filed 2009-05-20(g)

Moore also challenges the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) in light of District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008). This argument is foreclosed by United States v. Anderson, 559 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2009).

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by felons remains constitutional under the Second Amendment after Heller.

United States v. Smith · filed 2009-06-01(g)(1)

Smith’s argument that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional in light of District of Columbia v. Heller, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 687 (2008), is without merit.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by convicted felons does not violate the Second Amendment.

United States v. Earnest D. Battle · filed 2009-09-28(g)(1)

Because the Supreme Court in Heller stated that “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited” and “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” Battle’s argument that the permanent prohibition of the right to bear arms, as found in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), violates the Second Amendment is without merit.

A conviction under § 922(g)(1) withstands a plain-error Second Amendment challenge when the provision’s constitutionality is not clear under current law.

United States v. Gerald L. Banks · filed 2009-10-28(g)(1)

Because the issue is not “clear under current law,” the district court did not plainly err by finding that Banks violated § 922(g).

Section 922(g)(9)’s firearm prohibition for people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence is presumptively lawful under the Second Amendment.

United States v. White · filed 2010-01-11(g)(9)

We now explicitly hold that § 922(g)(9) is a presumptively lawful “longstanding prohibition[] on the possession of firearms.” Heller, __ U.S. __-__, 128 S. Ct. at 2816-17.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by felons remains constitutional under the Second Amendment after Heller.

United States v. Khami · filed 2010-01-26(g)(1)

Since Heller indicates that its holding does not bring into question the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1), and this Court has not been presented with any convincing argument that its dicta should not be very persuasive in this case, the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss Count IV.

Section 922(g)(1) constitutionally prohibits felons from possessing firearms, even for self-defense at home.

United States v. Rozier · filed 2010-03-04(g)(1)

We find 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) to be constitutional, even if a felon possesses a firearm purely ... for self-defense.

Section 922(g)(9)'s ban on firearm possession by people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence does not violate the Second Amendment.

United States v. Brown · filed 2010-05-25(g)(9)

For the foregoing reasons, the Government has established that § 922(g)(9) regulates conduct falling outside the scope of the Second Amendment as understood in light of its history and our nation’s constitutional development. Thus, because the statute does not impinge upon the Second Amendment, it is not proper to apply any level of heightened constitutional scrutiny.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by convicted felons does not violate the Second Amendment.

United States v. Feaster · filed 2010-07-08(g)(1)

Because we have held that the circumscription of a convicted felon’s right to bear arms, as found in § 922(g)(1), does not violate the Second Amendment, Feaster’s argument that his § 922(g)(1) conviction violated the Second Amendment is without merit.

Section 922(g)(1)'s ban on firearm possession by felons is constitutional as applied to a person previously convicted of a violent felony.

United States v. Williams · filed 2010-08-05(g)(1)

Because Williams was convicted of a violent felony, his claim that § 922(g)(1) unconstitutionally infringes on his right to possess a firearm is without merit.

Section 922(g)(3) constitutionally bars current unlawful drug users from possessing firearms because the ban is substantially related to preventing violent crime.

United States v. Yancey · filed 2010-09-03(g)(3)

In sum, we find that Congress acted within constitu- tional bounds by prohibiting illegal drug users from firearm possession because it is substantially related to the important governmental interest in preventing violent crime.

Section 922(g)(3)’s prohibition on firearm possession by unlawful drug users or addicts is presumptively lawful under the Second Amendment.

United States v. Seay · filed 2010-09-08(g)(3)

As such, we find that § 922(g)(3) is the type of “longstanding prohibition[] on the possession of firearms” that Heller declared presumptively lawful.

Section 922(g)(1)'s prohibition on firearm possession by felons does not violate the Second Amendment.

United States v. Presberry · filed 2011-01-19(g)(1)

Finally, Presberry argues that the felon in possession statute violates the Second Amendment. We reject this argument for reasons we have stated previously.

Section 922(o)’s prohibition on possessing machine guns does not violate the Second Amendment.

United States v. Allen · filed 2011-01-27(o)

Finally, Allen asserts that 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) is an unconstitutional infringement on his Second Amendment right to bear arms. He concedes that this assertion is foreclosed by this court’s decision in United States v. Fincher, 538 F.3d 868, 874 (8th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S.Ct. 1369 (2009), holding that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual’s right to possess a machine gun. Nothing in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010)–decided after Fincher–changes the rule in this circuit.

Section 922(g)(9)’s ban on firearm possession by people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence withstands a facial Second Amendment challenge.

United States v. Russell Donovan, III · filed 2011-02-16(g)(9)

And as Donovan concedes, Skoien II forecloses his challenge. In Skoien II, we upheld the categorical disarmament of domestic-violence misdemeanants such as Donovan.

Section 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional under the Second Amendment, though a felon may challenge its application by showing circumstances that distinguish him from those historically barred from possessing firearms.

United States v. Barton · filed 2011-03-04(g)(1)

The Supreme Court’s decisions in Heller and McDonald compel the conclusion that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional. It is also constitutional as applied to Barton because he has presented no facts distinguishing his circumstances from those of other felons who are categorically unprotected by the Second Amendment.

Section 922(g)(1)’s restriction on firearm possession by convicted felons does not violate the Second Amendment.

United States v. Bernall · filed 2011-03-09(g)(1)

First, Bernal’s constitutional arguments pertaining to § 922 (g) are foreclosed by precedent. ... Third, this Court has likewise previously held that the circumscription of a convicted felon’s right to bear arms, as found in § 922(g)(1), does not violate the Second Amendment.

Section 922(d)(3)’s prohibition on selling a firearm to an unlawful drug user does not violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

United States v. Chafin · filed 2011-04-13(d)(3)

Accordingly, Chafin’s argument that § 922(d)(3) is unconstitutional under Heller must be rejected.

Section 922(g)(5)'s prohibition on firearm possession by aliens illegally in the United States does not violate the Second Amendment.

United States v. Portillo-Munoz · filed 2011-06-13(g)(5)

... and we hold that section 922(g)(5) is constitutional under the Second Amendment.

Section 922(g)(5)’s ban on firearm possession by aliens illegally in the United States does not violate the Second Amendment.

United States v. Portillo-Munoz · filed 2011-06-29(g)(5)

Whatever else the term means or includes, the phrase “the people” in the Second Amendment of the Constitution does not include aliens illegally in the United States such as Portillo, and we hold that section 922(g)(5) is constitutional under the Second ... Amendment.

Section 922(g)(9)'s restriction on firearm possession by people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence withstands a Second Amendment challenge.

Ross v. Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms · filed 2011-08-04(g)(9)

This Court, joining the majority view, also upholds § 922(g)(9) against a Second Amendment challenge.

Section 922(g)(3) may constitutionally prohibit unlawful drug users from possessing firearms.

United States v. Dugan · filed 2011-09-20(g)(3)

Because Con- gress may constitutionally deprive felons and mentally ill peo- ple of the right to possess and carry weapons, we conclude that Congress may also prohibit illegal drug users from pos- sessing firearms.

Section 922(g)(1)'s ban on firearm possession by felons applies to a person with prior serious drug-dealing convictions despite a Second Amendment challenge.

United States v. Torres-Rosario · filed 2011-09-23(g)(1)

Assuming arguendo that the Supreme Court might find some felonies so tame and technical as to be insufficient to justify the ban, drug dealing is not likely to be among them.

Section 922(g)(1) withstands a Second Amendment challenge based solely on a felon's claim that he possessed a gun for self defense.

United States v. Tyrone Brown · filed 2011-11-03(g)(1)

To the extent that Brown also makes an as applied challenge to the statute, he is unsuccessful. ... Brown's assertion that he possessed the gun for self defense is insufficient to successfully challenge his conviction under the felon in possession statute.

Section 922(g)(5)(A)'s prohibition on firearm possession by aliens illegally present in the United States is not facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

United States v. Flores · filed 2011-12-16(g)(5)(A)

Flores moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that § 922(g)(5)(A) was facially unconstitutional in light of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). ... Agreeing with the Fifth Circuit that the protections of the Second Amendment do not extend to aliens illegally ... present in this country, ... we affirm.

Section 922(g)(1)'s prohibition on firearm possession by convicted felons does not violate the Second Amendment.

United States v. Chadrick Griffin · filed 2011-12-20(g)(1)

Defendant concedes that we have previously held that prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons do not violate the Second Amendment. United States v. Carey, 602 F.3d 738, 741 (6th Cir. 2010) (citing Dist. of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626-27 (2008)). Defendant’s citation to McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010), does not impact our holding in Carey. The petitioners challenging Chicago’s gun control laws were not convicted felons.

To defend § 922(g)(3) under the Second Amendment, the government must show that disarming unlawful drug users and addicts reasonably advances its goal of reducing gun violence.

United States v. Carter · filed 2012-01-23(g)(3)

Nonetheless, the government still bears the burden of showing that § 922(g)(3)’s limited imposition on Second Amendment rights proportionately advances the goal of preventing gun violence. And we conclude that in this case, the record it made is insufficient.

Section 922(g)(1)’s ban on firearm possession by felons is constitutional on its face and as applied to a felon with an extensive violent criminal history who carried a gun for self-defense.

United States v. Moore · filed 2012-01-25(g)(1)

Since clearly there are cases where felon firearm possession is constitutionally limited, § 922(g)(1) survives a facial challenge. ... Therefore, we hold that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to Moore and the district court did not err in denying Moore’s motion to dismiss.

Section 922(g) withstands a facial Second Amendment challenge under Eighth Circuit precedent.

United States v. Aiello · filed 2012-02-09(g)

To the extent, as Aiello urges, that he brings a facial challenge to § 922(g), his arguments are foreclosed by our circuit precedent.

Section 922(g)(9) is constitutional as applied to this defendant with a domestic violence misdemeanor conviction.

United States v. Chester · filed 2012-02-10(g)(9)

The court, accordingly, concludes that section 922(g)(9) is constitutional as applied to defendant.

Section 922(g)(9)'s ban on firearm possession by people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence is presumptively lawful under the Second Amendment.

Enos v. Holder · filed 2012-02-28(g)(9)

The Court finds that § 922(g)(9) is a presumptively lawful categorical ban under Heller, and extends the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Vongxay to hold that § 922(g)(9) does not violate the Second Amendment as applied to Plaintiffs, convicted domestic violence misdemeanants.

Section 922(g)(1) does not violate the Second Amendment as applied to a person with multiple felony convictions, even when limited mobility makes self-defense difficult.

United States v. Lunsford · filed 2012-03-26(g)(1)

Lunsford’s constitutional challenge to § 922(g)(1) therefore fails.

Section 922(g)’s prohibition on firearm possession by felons is not facially invalid under the Second Amendment in the Eighth Circuit.

United States v. Roach · filed 2012-05-30(g)

To the extent [Roach] brings a facial challenge to § 922(g), his arguments are foreclosed by our circuit precedent.

Section 922(a)(3) is facially constitutional because its restriction on bringing an out-of-state firearm into one’s home state leaves adequate ways to acquire a firearm for self-defense.

United States v. Decastro · filed 2012-06-01(a)(3)

Because § 922(a)(3) does not substantially burden the fundamental right to obtain a firearm sufficient for self-defense, and attempts only to assist states in the enforcement of their own gun laws, it does not infringe the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, and its sweep is therefore plainly legitimate.

Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to a person whose prior felony involved eluding police during a high-speed chase.

United States v. Kline · filed 2012-09-12(g)(1)

We conclude Kline’s prior conviction for eluding a law enforcement officer is sufficient to find the statute constitutional as applied.

Section 922(g)(1)’s ban on felons possessing ammunition does not violate the Second Amendment as applied to a felon with repeated firearms convictions.

United States v. Pruess · filed 2012-12-31(g)(1)

We now join our sister circuits in holding that application of the felon-in-possession prohibition to allegedly non-violent felons like Pruess does not violate the Second Amendment.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by convicted felons can be applied without violating the Second Amendment.

United States v. William Morrison, III · filed 2013-01-15(g)(1)

Next, Morrison contends that the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), as applied to him, violate the Second Amendment. ... In light of our recent decisions in United States v. Moore, 666 F.3d 313 (4th Cir. 2012) and United States v. Smoot, 690 F.3d 215 (4th Cir. 2012), we find Morrison’s claim to be without merit.

Section 922(g)(5) does not violate the Second Amendment because firearm possession by illegal aliens falls outside the amendment’s scope.

United States v. La Cruz · filed 2013-02-14(g)(5)

Section 922(g)(5) does not violate the Second Amendment, because possession of firearms by illegal aliens does not fall within the amendment’s scope.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on felons possessing ammunition does not violate the Second Amendment.

United States v. Harris · filed 2013-03-04(g)(1)

We reject Harris’s claim that the indictment was unconstitutional, which appears to be based on his argument in the district court that section 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment, see United States v. Joos, 638 F.3d 581, 586 (8th Cir. 2011); and we decline to address on direct appeal any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, see United States v. McAdory, 501 F.3d 868, 872-73 (8th Cir. 2007).

Section 922(g)(1)’s ban on firearm possession by convicted felons does not violate their Second Amendment rights.

United States v. Bogle · filed 2013-05-23(g)(1)

We hold that § 922(g)(1) does not violate Bogle’s Second Amendment rights, and AFFIRM his conviction.

Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to a felon who has not shown that his circumstances place him outside its intended scope.

United States v. Ralph Hauck, Jr. · filed 2013-07-24(g)(1)

Hauck‟s as-applied challenge fails as well because Hauck, who has a long list of past convictions including witness tampering and harassment as well as a 2008 violation of an order of protection taken out by his estranged wife, has not shown that his circumstances place him outside of the intended scope of § 922(g)(1) such that the statute is unconstitutional as applied to him.

Section 922(g)(4)’s prohibition on firearm possession by people previously committed to a mental institution does not violate the Second Amendment, even if they have recovered.

In re Application to Restore Firearms Rights of Keyes · filed 2013-12-24(g)(4)

Moreover, even if we assume ar-guendo that section 922(g)(4) is within the area protected by the Second Amendment and the first prong of Marzzarella is satisfied, section 922(g)(4) does not run afoul of the second, scrutiny prong.

Section 922(d)(3) may constitutionally bar federally licensed dealers from selling firearms to unlawful drug users.

Wilson v. Holder · filed 2014-03-12(d)(3)

Just as Congress may constitutionally preclude illegal drug users from possessing a firearm, Congress likewise may preclude FFLs from selling firearms to illegal drug users and thereby prevent such prohibited persons from acquiring firearms.

Section 922(g)(1) does not violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

United States v. Roosevelt Kyle, Jr. · filed 2014-03-27(g)(1)

Third, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) does not violate Kyle’s Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on felons possessing firearms does not plainly violate the Second Amendment.

United States v. Humphrey · filed 2014-06-05(g)(1)

First, the Supreme Court’s recent Second Amendment decisions do not “cast doubt” on the constitutionality of felon-in-possession statutes, District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626-27 (2008), and we have rejected constitutional challenges to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

Section 922(g)(1) may be applied to a felon who has no prior firearm or violent offense; the Second Amendment does not bar the conviction or sentence.

United States v. Powell · filed 2014-06-26(g)(1)

The Second Amendment does not preclude Powell’s conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm nor the sentence imposed pursuant to that conviction.

Section 922(g)(1)’s ban on firearm possession by felons does not violate the Second Amendment.

Van Der Hule v. Eric Holder, Jr. · filed 2014-07-16(g)(1)

In light of Chovan and Vongxay, we believe that § 922(g)(1) continues to pass constitutional muster.

Section 922(g)(1)’s ban on firearm possession by felons survives a Second Amendment challenge by a person convicted of a violent felony whose sentence recently expired.

Bell v. United States · filed 2014-07-22(g)(1)

The District Court did not err in rejecting Bell’s constitutional challenges to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which prohibits the possession of a firearm by any person who has been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. ... Bell’s as-applied challenge fails because his circumstances are not distinguishable from those of persons historically barred from Second Amendment protections.

Section 922(g)(1) withstands an as-applied Second Amendment challenge when the defendant’s circumstances do not distinguish him from ordinary offenders.

United States v. Taylor · filed 2014-12-09(g)(1)

Taylor alleges that he was not participating in any criminal conduct at the time of his arrest, but this contention, which is contrary to the jury’s factual findings, is simply inadequate to remove Taylor’s situation from the run-of-the-mill challenge to the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1).

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by convicted felons is constitutional under the Second Amendment.

United States v. Zimmerman · filed 2015-02-17(g)(1)

But, and as Zimmerman’s counsel concedes, the Second Circuit has already squarely rejected such an argument. United States v. Bogle, 717 F.3d 281 (2d Cir.2013) (per curiam) (“[Section] 922(g)(1) is a constitutional restriction on the Second Amendment rights of convicted felons.” (footnote omitted)). Accordingly, Zimmerman’s motion to dismiss the indictment will also be denied.

Section 922(g)(1)'s felon-in-possession prohibition withstands an as-applied Second Amendment challenge by a defendant with an extensive felony record.

United States v. Siegrist · filed 2015-03-13(g)(1)

Looking at those factors, it is clear Siegrist's as-applied challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) must fail. He has an extensive criminal history, with twenty-two felony convictions including a commercial burglary. Persons with criminal histories this extensive historically have been "barred from Second Amendment protections."

Section 922(g)(1)’s restriction on firearm possession by convicted felons is constitutional under the Second Amendment, including when it does not distinguish violent from nonviolent felonies.

United States v. Dowis · filed 2016-02-18(g)(1)

We have already held that “statutory restrictions on firearm possession, such as § 922(g)(1), are a constitutional avenue to restrict the Second Amendment right of certain classes of people.” Id. at 771. ... Accordingly, Dowis’s claim is foreclosed by this court’s prior precedent.

Section 922(g)(1)’s ban on firearm possession survives an as-applied Second Amendment challenge by a person convicted of violent robbery.

Baer v. Lynch · filed 2016-02-25(g)(1)

This precedent forecloses Baer’s challenge to § 922(g)(1) as applied to him because, as his complaint acknowledges, he has a felony conviction for robbery, which is a violent crime.

Section 922(g)(1) can face an as-applied Second Amendment challenge when a person plausibly alleges that the disqualifying conviction was not a serious crime.

Zedonis v. Lynch · filed 2017-02-08(g)(1)

Therefore, upon review of the factors set forth in Binderup, we find that Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that his 2005 DUI conviction is not a serious crime, and has stated a plausible as-applied challenge to § 922(g)(1) under the Second Amendment.

Section 922(o)’s machine gun ban does not violate the Second Amendment because machine guns are not in common use.

Bezet v. United States · filed 2017-03-17(o)

That is, because “a law that regulates a class of weapons that are not in common use will be . upheld at step one,” such as machine guns, the Court finds that Section 922(o) “passes constitutional muster.”

Section 922(g)(1)’s ban on firearm possession does not violate the Second Amendment as applied to a felon who has not shown he is nonviolent.

United States v. Taylor · filed 2017-06-13(g)(1)

We have held “it is well settled that Congress did not violate the Second Amendment or exceed its authority under the Commerce Clause when enacting . . . § 922(g).” ... Taylor has not demonstrated he is a non-violent felon.

Section 922(g)(1) can constitutionally bar a person with nonviolent felony convictions from possessing firearms when he has not shown that he is no more dangerous than a typical law-abiding citizen.

United States v. Hughley · filed 2017-06-14(g)(1)

Although Hughley’s prior felonies were nonviolent, he has not shown that he is no more dangerous than a typical law-abiding citizen. ... Section 922(g)(1)’s purpose reaches beyond felons who have proven themselves violent—that is, those who have already committed violent felonies.

A person barred by § 922(g)(1) can state a plausible as-applied Second Amendment challenge by alleging facts that the qualifying offense was not serious.

Holloway v. Sessions · filed 2017-07-19(g)(1)

At this juncture, we hold only that Holloway has sufficiently stated a plausible challenge to § 922(g)(1).

A felon's as-applied Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) is foreclosed by Ninth Circuit precedent.

Michaels v. Lynch · filed 2017-11-03(g)(1)

The district court properly dismissed Michaels’s action because prior precedent forecloses Michaels’s as-applied challenge to § 922(g)(1).

Section 922(g)(1) may constitutionally bar firearm possession by a person convicted of a serious nonviolent felony, even if that person received no jail time.

United States v. Irving · filed 2018-07-27(g)(1)

In conclusion, as a felon convicted of a serious crime, Hunt Irving fell outside the protection of the Second Amendment, and his indictment under § 922(g)(1) was lawful.

Section 922(o)’s prohibition on possessing machine guns does not violate the Second Amendment as applied to an unlicensed person possessing unregistered machine guns for personal use.

Hamblen v. United States · filed 2009-12-30(o)

Petitioner Richard Hamblen appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, claiming that his convictions for possession of machine guns, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), and possession of unregistered firearms, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), are unconstitutional. Because the Second Amendment does not confer an unrestricted individual right to keep and bear machine guns, we affirm the district court’s judgment and deny Hamblen’s petition for relief.

Section 922(g)(5)(A)’s ban on firearm possession by illegal aliens does not violate the Second Amendment.

United States v. Jimenez-Shilon · filed 2022-05-23(g)(5)(A)

The law’s ban on firearm possession by illegal aliens does not “infringe[]” the right that the Second Amendment embodies.

An unpreserved challenge to § 922(n) under Bruen does not establish plain error when the section’s constitutionality is reasonably disputed.

United States v. Williams · filed 2023-03-03(n)

In an unpublished opinion, we have recently rejected the argument that § 922(n) is clearly or obviously unconstitutional under Bruen. See United States v. Avila, No. 22-50088, 2022 WL 17832287, at *2 (5th Cir. Dec. 21, 2022) (unpublished). The issue is therefore subject to reasonable dispute, and Williams cannot demonstrate a clear or obvious error.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by convicted felons remains constitutional under Bruen’s Second Amendment standard.

Leonard v. United States · filed 2023-03-09(g)(1)

In short, the Court finds that § 922(g)(1) is still constitutional, even under the new standard set forth in Bruen.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by felons does not violate the Second Amendment.

Montes v. United States · filed 2023-05-26(g)(1)

Petitioner’s convicting statute is constitutional, and his Second Amendment claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

A challenge to § 922(n) under Bruen does not establish plain error when its unconstitutionality is not clear or obvious.

United States v. Rodriguez · filed 2023-06-16(n)

There is no binding precedent holding § 922(n) unconstitutional, and it is not clear Bruen dictates such a result.

Section 922(g)(1)'s prohibition on firearm possession by convicted felons is constitutional even when a defendant's prior felonies were nonviolent.

United States v. Cunningham · filed 2023-06-13(g)(1)

The longstanding prohibition on possession of firearms by felons is constitutional, and the district court properly denied the motion to dismiss.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by people convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year does not infringe the Second Amendment right.

Cusick v. U.S. Department of Justice · filed 2023-08-18(g)(1)

Accordingly, the Court finds that the felon-in-possession statute does not infringe on the Second Amendment right as currently defined by the Supreme Court.

A defendant who did not challenge § 922(g)(1) below cannot establish plain error under the Second Amendment when no binding precedent holds the provision unconstitutional and Bruen does not clearly require that result.

United States v. Racliff · filed 2023-09-14(g)(1)

Because there is no binding precedent explicitly holding that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional and because it is not clear that Bruen dictates such a result, Racliff is unable to demonstrate an error that is clear or obvious.

Section 922(g)(1)’s ban on firearm possession by convicted felons remains constitutional under Tenth Circuit precedent after Bruen.

Jones v. United States · filed 2023-09-20(g)(1)

The Tenth Circuit determined that Bruen did not abrogate its precedent and that Tenth Circuit case law upholding “the constitutionality of the federal ban for any convicted felon’s possession of a firearm” is still good law. ... Although other circuit courts have reached different conclusions as to the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) subsequent to the Bruen decision,4 this Court is bound to apply Tenth Circuit precedent.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by felons does not violate the Second Amendment under Bruen.

Handy v. United States · filed 2023-12-06(g)(1)

Despite Handy’s arguments otherwise, he is not factually innocent because the statute under which he was convicted does not violate the Second Amendment.

Section 922(g)(1)'s firearm restriction remains constitutional under binding circuit precedent, and a Second Amendment challenge to § 922(k)'s altered serial number prohibition does not establish plain error.

United States v. Hyde · filed 2024-02-22

The prior panel precedent rule bars Hyde’s challenge to the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1). ... Further, Hyde cannot establish plain error as to his § 922(k) argument. First, weapons with altered or obliterated serial numbers are not usually possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes and, thus, fall outside the protection of the Second Amendment.

A challenge to § 922(g) under Bruen does not establish plain error without binding authority holding the section unconstitutional.

United States v. Olivas · filed 2024-03-05(g)

Olivas fails to make the requisite showing. He cites no binding authority from this court or the Supreme Court holding § 922(g) to be unconstitutional, either facially or as applied, in light of Bruen.

An unpreserved Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) fails plain-error review when no precedent makes its unconstitutionality clear after Bruen.

United States v. Johnson · filed 2024-03-05(g)(1)

Without precedent explicitly holding that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional and because it is unclear that Bruen dictates such a result, we find that Johnson has not satisfied the plain-error standard.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by convicted felons remains constitutional under Eleventh Circuit precedent after Bruen.

United States v. Pierre · filed 2024-03-12(g)(1)

In United States v. DuBois, No. 22-10829, manuscript op. at 9-15 (11th Cir. 2024), we explicitly rejected this argument and ruled that our prior precedent in United States v. Rozier, 598 F.3d 768 (11th Cir. 2010), in which we upheld the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1), remains good law. ... As such, Pierre’s argument fails, and his conviction is AFFIRMED.

Section 922(o)’s machinegun prohibition presents no clear or obvious Second Amendment error under existing Fifth Circuit precedent.

United States v. Loyola · filed 2024-03-10(o)

In Hollis v. Lynch, our court concluded that machineguns are not protected by the Second Amendment. ... Accordingly, he fails to show the requisite clear-or-obvious error.

Section 922(n)’s restriction on receiving a firearm while under felony indictment does not violate the Second Amendment.

Rangel-Ramirez v. United States · filed 2024-04-09(n)

For the reasons set forth by the court in Posada, this Court similarly finds that, although § 922(n) places some burdens on the Second Amendment, those burdens do not render § 922(n) unconstitutional.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by convicted felons remains constitutional after Bruen under binding Sixth Circuit precedent.

Crayton v. United States · filed 2024-04-15(g)(1)

Accordingly, the Court finds that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) remains constitutional after Bruen, and, as a result, Petitioner cannot establish that his attorney’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness by failing to raise the constitutionality of the statute or that his failure to do so prejudiced him.

Section 922(k) is not unconstitutional under the Second Amendment as applied to possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number during a drug-trafficking offense.

United States v. Lopez · filed 2024-05-07(k)

Because Lopez acknowledges that he possessed a firearm during the commission of a drug-trafficking offense, his conduct fell outside the scope of law-abiding purposes, and § 922(k) is not unconstitutional as applied to him.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by felons is constitutional under the Second Amendment.

United States v. Dunlap · filed 2024-05-15(g)(1)

Further, § 922(g)(1) is consistent with the text and history of the Second Amendment and is consti- tutionally sound.

Section 922(g)(1)’s restriction on firearm possession by convicted felons remains constitutional after Bruen.

Edwards v. United States · filed 2024-06-05(g)(1)

Thus, this Circuit’s ruling stating “§ 922(g)(1) is a constitutional restriction on [a defendaRnotz’sie] ... S, e5c9o8n Fd. 3Adm. endment righVtI”. stilCl oapnpclliuessi, owna rranting no relief for Edwards.

Section 922(a)(6) can punish knowingly false answers on ATF Form 4473 without infringing the Second Amendment.

United States v. Echo Scheidt · filed 2024-06-07(a)(6)

Put another way, Scheidt may not lie when completing Form 4473 and then turn around and challenge her § 922(a)(6) conviction on the ground that the information requirement itself is invalid.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by convicted felons does not violate the Second Amendment.

United States v. Causey · filed 2024-06-24(g)(1)

§ 922(g)(1) does not violate the Second Amendment, and we affirm Causey’s § 922(g)(1) conviction.

Section 922(g)(8)(C)(i) may temporarily bar firearm possession by a person whom a court has found to pose a credible threat to another’s physical safety without violating the Second Amendment.

United States v. Rahimi Revisions: 6/25/24 · filed 2024-06-21(g)(8)(C)(i)

The burden Section 922(g)(8) imposes on the right to bear arms also fits within our regulatory tradition.

Section 922(k)’s prohibition on possessing firearms with removed, obliterated, or altered serial numbers does not violate the Second Amendment because those firearms are not in common use for lawful purposes.

United States v. Price · filed 2024-08-06(k)

We conclude that the conduct regulated by § 922(k) does not fall within the scope of the right enshrined in the Second Amendment because a firearm with a removed, obliterated, or altered serial number is not a weapon in common use for lawful purposes.

Section 922(n)’s prohibition on receiving firearms while under felony indictment is consistent with the Second Amendment because historical surety laws provide an appropriate analogue.

Nixon v. United States · filed 2024-08-07(n)

As some of this Court’s sister districts have persuasively concluded, surety laws are appropriate historical analogues to § 922(n) to demonstrate that it is not unconstitutional.

Section 922(g)(8) may restrict firearm possession under a qualifying civil protection order without violating the Second Amendment on its face; whether it violates a person’s rights as applied depends on the order and how it was issued.

State v. Merriweather · filed 2024-08-02(g)(8)

In light of the Supreme Court’s holding in Rahimi II, we find that the trial court erred in its conclusion that a civil protection order could never form the basis for restricting a person’s Second Amendment rights. And because the record does not contain a copy of the CPO itself, or any information regarding its issuance, we are unable to engage in any further analysis on the question of whether Section 922(g)(8)(c)(i), or any other section of the federal statute, would violate Merriweather’s rights as applied.

Section 922(g) prohibits a felon from possessing a firearm, and the prohibition remains enforceable despite an as-applied Second Amendment challenge based on decades of lawful conduct.

Raley v. United States of America (MAG+) · filed 2024-08-16(g)

This Court acknowledges Mr. Raley’s plight, but cannot give him the relief he seeks. The Eleventh Circuit has repeatedly rejected arguments that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

Section 922(a)(6) prohibits false statements about the actual purchaser of a firearm, and applying it to such a statement does not violate the Second Amendment.

United States v. Manney · filed 2024-08-19(a)(6)

We conclude that Manney cannot establish that § 922(a)(6) violates her Second Amendment right under the facts of this case.

Section 922(g)(1)’s ban on firearm possession by convicted felons survives Second Amendment scrutiny.

United States v. Rocky M. Thomas · filed 2024-08-20(g)(1)

We thus conclude that Thomas’s challenge is foreclosed by this Circuit’s precedent holding that § 922(g)(1) survives Second Amendment scrutiny.

Section 922(g)(3) cannot constitutionally disarm a sober, occasional marijuana user based solely on past use, but §§ 922(g)(3) and 922(d)(3) have constitutional applications involving present intoxication.

United States v. Connelly · filed 2024-08-28

Paola’s § 922(g)(3) charge is inconsistent with our history and tradition of firearms regulations for the reasons discussed above, so we AFFIRM the judgment of dismissal as to her as-applied challenge. But that holding is narrow. There undoubtedly exist circumstances where § 922(g)(3) may apply constitutionally, such as when it bans a presently intoxicated person from carrying firearms, so we REVERSE as to Paola’s facial challenge. Finally, we REVERSE as to Paola’s facial challenge to § 922(d)(3).

Section 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional under the Second Amendment because it has a plainly legitimate sweep and can constitutionally apply in at least some circumstances.

United States v. Donald Martin, Jr. · filed 2024-08-29(g)(1)

The Government moves for summary affirmance in light of our recent decision in United States v. Canada, in which we considered and rejected the same argument, holding that “[§] 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional because it has a plainly legitimate sweep and may constitutionally be applied in at least some set of circumstances.” 103 F.4th 257, 258 (4th Cir. 2024) (cleaned up). ... Because the only issue raised in Martin’s appeal is foreclosed by our decision in Canada, we grant the Government’s motion for summary affirmance, and we ... affirm the district court’s judgment.

Section 922(g) is not facially unconstitutional under binding Fourth Circuit precedent after Bruen.

United States v. Williams · filed 2024-08-26

Although we grant leave to file the supplemental brief, we agree with counsel that Canada, in which we squarely rejected a challenge to the facial constitutionality of § 922(g), id. at 258-59, forecloses this claim.

Section 922(g)(8) is facially constitutional under the Second Amendment.

United States v. Rahimi · filed 2024-09-12(g)(8)

The Supreme Court, clarifying its Bruen test, reversed our judgment and held that § 922(g)(8) is facially constitutional. ... Based on the Supreme Court’s ruling rejecting his constitutional claim, we therefore affirm his conviction.

Section 922(g)(1) withstands a facial Second Amendment challenge because most of its applications are constitutional.

United States v. Partee · filed 2024-09-18(g)(1)

And our court recently held that, because “most applications of § 922(g)(1) are constitutional, the provision is not susceptible to a facial challenge.” United States v. Williams, --- F.4th ---, 2024 WL 3912894, at *13 (6th Cir. Aug. 23, 2024). We therefore reject Partee’s challenge here.

Section 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional under the Second Amendment.

United States v. Dorsey · filed 2024-09-20(g)(1)

Based on a recent published decision from this court, § 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional.

Section 922(g)(9)’s ban on firearm possession by people convicted of domestic-violence misdemeanors is facially constitutional under the Second Amendment.

United States v. Gailes · filed 2024-10-10(g)(9)

We therefore hold that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) is facially constitutional, “consistent with the Second Amendment.”

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by convicted felons does not violate the Second Amendment under binding Eleventh Circuit precedent.

United States v. Perez-Quibus · filed 2024-10-18(g)(1)

Our precedent forecloses Perez-Quibus’s argument. In United States v. Dubois, we reaffirmed that, under District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), section 922(g)(1) does not violate the Second Amendment.

Section 922(g)(5)(A) survives a Bruen-based Second Amendment challenge under binding Fifth Circuit precedent.

United States v. Miranda · filed 2024-12-23(g)(5)(A)

The district court concluded that the statute under which he was indicted, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A), is unconstitutional per New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). ... Nonetheless, the government is correct that, under United States v. Medina-Cantu, 113 F.4th 537 (5th Cir. 2024), the dis- missal was error.

Section 922(n)’s temporary restrictions on receiving, shipping, or transporting firearms while under felony indictment are consistent with the Second Amendment.

United States v. Quiroz · filed 2025-01-13(n)

Accordingly, we hold that the government has met its burden of showing that § 922(n) is relevantly similar to pretrial detention at the founding.

Section 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional and may be applied to a felon found armed while intoxicated during supervised release for an earlier firearm offense.

United States v. Contreras · filed 2025-01-13(g)(1)

As the Diaz panel found at least one constitutional application of 922(g)(1), see Diaz, 116 F.4th at 471, Contreras’ facial challenge is foreclosed. ... We conclude that § 922(g)(1) is consistent with these principles.

Section 922(n) does not facially violate the Second Amendment.

United States v. Rogers · filed 2025-01-27(n)

Because we have held that § 922(n) does not violate the Second Amendment on its face, see United States v. Gore, 118 F.4th 808, 814-17 (6th Cir. 2024), we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by convicted felons does not violate the Second Amendment under binding Eleventh Circuit precedent.

United States v. Cole · filed 2025-01-30(g)(1)

Because we are bound to follow Rozier, we reject Cole’s Second Amendment challenge and affirm his 2023 felon-in-possession conviction under § 922(g)(1).

Section 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional under the Second Amendment and may constitutionally apply to a person convicted of theft.

United States v. Charles · filed 2025-02-06(g)(1)

18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional and constitutional as applied to Charles.

Section 922(g)(1)'s ban on firearm possession by felons is not facially invalid under the Second Amendment in the Tenth Circuit.

United States v. Jones · filed 2025-02-24(g)(1)

Given these developments, and because “we are bound to follow” this precedent, United States v. Swan, 91 F.4th 1052, 1059 n.7 (10th Cir. 2024), we must reject Mr. Jones’s Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1).

Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional under the Second Amendment as applied to a person serving probation when he violates it.

United States v. Jones · filed 2025-02-24(g)(1)

Also, because he was serving a term of probation when he violated § 922(g)(1), the statute is constitutional as applied to him.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by felons withstands facial and as-applied Second Amendment challenges under controlling Tenth Circuit precedent.

United States v. Willis · filed 2025-03-04(g)(1)

We are now in the same position as when we resolved Defendant’s appeal in 2023: Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit precedent (now Vincent III) forecloses Defendant’s facial and as-applied challenges to § 922(g)(1).

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by felons withstands a Second Amendment challenge under binding Tenth Circuit precedent.

United States v. Mayfield · filed 2025-03-10(g)(1)

We are now in the same position as when we resolved Defendant’s appeal in 2023: Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit precedent (Vincent III) foreclose Defendant’s constitutional challenges to § 922(g)(1).

Section 922(g)(1) does not violate the Second Amendment, even after Rahimi.

United States v. Whitehead · filed 2025-03-25(g)(1)

Thus, even after Rahimi, this circuit holds that § 922(g)(1) does not violate the Second Amendment. Whitehead’s argument, therefore, fails on the merits.

Section 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional under the Second Amendment.

United States v. Alvarez · filed 2025-03-28(g)(1)

This challenge, however, is foreclosed by our court’s recent decision in United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 471–72 (5th Cir. 2024), petition for cert. docketed (U.S. 24 Feb. 2025) (No. 24-6625), holding § 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional under Bruen.

Section 922(g)(1) is not facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment after Bruen.

United States v. Hymes · filed 2025-04-03(g)(1)

Dajohn M. Hymes asserts that the statute under which he was convicted, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), is facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment in view of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). ... The Government is correct that Hymes’s challenge is foreclosed.

Section 922(n) does not facially violate the Second Amendment.

United States v. Sanchez-Tena · filed 2025-04-21(n)

We previously considered the facial constitutionality of § 922(n) and decided that the statute does not violate the Second Amendment. See United States v. Quiroz, 125 F.4th 713, 717-25 (5th Cir. 2025). The Government thus is correct that the district court erred in dismissing the indictment.

Section 922(g)(1) does not violate the Second Amendment as applied to a person who violates it while serving a term of supervised release.

United States v. Hernandez · filed 2025-04-21(g)(1)

Also, because Hernandez was serving a term of supervised release when he violated § 922(g)(1), the statute does not violate the Second Amendment as applied to him.

Section 922(g)(1) is not facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

United States v. Mayfield · filed 2025-04-22(g)(1)

On remand, we concluded that Rahimi did not undermine our earlier reasoning or result and reiterated that the Second Amendment does not render § 922(g)(1) unconstitutional. Vincent v. Bondi, 127 F.4th at 1263 (10th Cir. 2025). We therefore reject Defendant’s facial challenge to the felon-in-possession statute.

Section 922(g)(1) is not facially invalid under the Second Amendment under Fifth Circuit precedent.

United States v. York · filed 2025-04-25(g)(1)

The Government is correct that York’s facial Second Amendment challenge is foreclosed, see United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 471-72 (5th Cir. 2024), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Feb. 24, 2025) (24-6625), as are his Commerce Clause arguments, see United States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 573 (5th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 1081 (2024).

Section 922(a)(1)(A) is not clearly or obviously unconstitutional under Bruen on plain-error review.

United States v. Soto · filed 2025-05-02(a)(1)(A)

Soto has not shown that § 922(a)(1)(A) is clearly or obviously unconstitutional.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by convicted felons survives facial and as-applied Second Amendment challenges under binding Tenth Circuit precedent after Bruen and Rahimi.

United States v. Reese · filed 2025-05-13(g)(1)

McCane remains binding after Bruen and Rahimi, so Defendant’s Second Amendment challenge fails.

Section 922(g)(8)(C)(ii)’s firearm prohibition is not facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment because it has constitutional applications.

United States v. Gordon · filed 2025-05-22(g)(8)(C)(ii)

Because there are at least some circumstances in which (C)(ii) can be constitutionally applied to a defendant’s conduct, it is not facially unconstitutional.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession after a felony conviction is not facially invalid under the Second Amendment.

United States v. Payne · filed 2025-05-23(g)(1)

Likewise, his facial challenge to § 922(g)(1) also is foreclosed.

A facial Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) is foreclosed in the Fifth Circuit after Bruen.

United States v. Lee · filed 2025-05-23(g)(1)

Jakari Alexander Lee appeals his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). ... The Government is correct that Lee’s facial Second Amendment challenge is foreclosed.

Section 922(g)(9) may disarm a person whose domestic violence misdemeanor convictions demonstrate a threat of physical violence, and that valid application defeats a facial Second Amendment challenge.

United States v. Jackson · filed 2025-05-28(g)(9)

The burden imposed by § 922(g)(9) is consistent with the nation’s tradition of firearm regulation. In sum, § 922(g)(9), as applied to Jackson, is “relevantly similar to [the] founding era regimes in both why and how it burdens [his] Second Amendment right.” Rahimi, 602 U.S. at 698. Section 922(g)(9) therefore survives Jackson’s constitutional challenge.

Section 922(g)(1) withstands a facial Second Amendment challenge and an as-applied challenge by a person who possessed a firearm while on supervised release.

United States v. Truex · filed 2025-05-28(g)(1)

Truex’s facial challenge to § 922(g)(1) under the Second Amendment is now foreclosed, as he concedes. ... Because he was on supervised release when he violated § 922(g)(1), his as-applied challenge under the Second Amendment is similarly foreclosed.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession after a felony conviction is not facially invalid under the Second Amendment in the Fifth Circuit.

United States v. Henderson · filed 2025-05-28(g)(1)

Henderson is correct that his arguments are foreclosed. See United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 471-72 (5th Cir. 2024), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Feb. 18, 2025) (No. 24-6625).

An as-applied Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) raised for the first time on appeal is foreclosed on plain-error review in the Fifth Circuit.

United States v. Moore · filed 2025-05-30(g)(1)

For the first time on appeal, he argues that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment as applied to him. ... The Government is correct that the sole issue on appeal is foreclosed on plain error review.