18 U.S.C. § 922

Section 922(g)(4) constitutionally bars firearm possession by a person involuntarily committed after being found dangerous to himself, despite later rehabilitation.

Beers v. Attorney General United States · filed 2019-06-20(g)(4)

Because Beers cannot distinguish his circumstances, we conclude that § 922(g)(4) as applied to him does not burden conduct falling within the scope of the Second Amendment.

A person convicted of serious federal felonies cannot prevail on an as-applied Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) based on a light sentence or nonviolent conduct.

King v. Attorney General United States · filed 2019-07-25(g)(1)

King fails to meet that requirement because his federal convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) and (g)(1) were for serious crimes.

Section 922(g)(1)'s felon firearm ban withstands an as-applied Second Amendment challenge based on the claim that the predicate felonies were not considered felonies at the Founding.

United States v. Torres · filed 2020-01-10(g)(1)

Like the court in Phillips and other courts in this Circuit that have rejected as-applied challenges to the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) under the Second Amendment, this court is bound under Vongxay and Heller to assume the propriety of felon firearm bans.

Section 922(g)(1) constitutionally bars firearm possession after a repeat highest-BAC DUI conviction that qualifies as a serious crime, despite its misdemeanor label.

Raymond Holloway, Jr. v. Attorney General United States · filed 2020-01-17(g)(1)

Because Holloway was convicted of a serious crime as contemplated by Binderup v. Attorney General United States of America, 836 F.3d 336 (3d Cir. 2016) (en banc), applying § 922(g)(1) to him does not offend the Second Amendment.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by felons withstands an as-applied Second Amendment challenge based on a person’s conduct since conviction.

Flick v. Attorney General, Department of Justice · filed 2020-07-20(g)(1)

In Rozier, we specifically addressed Rozier’s individual circumstances as a felon before holding that § 922(g)(1) was a permissible restriction on his Second Amendment right. See id. at 770, 772 (assuming that Rozier “possessed the handgun for self-defense” but concluding that “[t]he circumstances surrounding Rozier’s possession . . . are irrelevant” because of his status as a felon). Our reasoning in Rozier applies equally to Flick’s as-applied challenge and thus forecloses it.

Section 922(g)(1) may constitutionally bar firearm possession after a serious nonviolent felony such as tax fraud.

Folajtar v. Attorney General USA · filed 2020-11-24(g)(1)

Because we determine the felony here is a serious crime, Folajtar is not protected by the Second Amendment, and her as-applied challenge to § 922(g)(1) fails.

Section 922(g)(5) is constitutional under the Second Amendment as applied to aliens illegally or unlawfully present in the United States.

United States v. Reyes-Torres · filed 2021-01-06(g)(5)

Reyes-Torres raises an argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Portillo-Munoz, 643 F.3d 437, 439-42 (5th Cir. 2011), in which we held that the Second Amendment’s protections regarding the right to carry and possess firearms did not extend to aliens illegally or unlawfully present in the United States and, therefore, § 922(g)(5) was constitutional under the Second Amendment. Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED as unnecessary, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Section 922(g)(1) may be applied to a person whose prior felony involved intent to defraud without violating the Second Amendment.

United States v. Shawn Mills · filed 2021-06-09(g)(1)

Hunt-Irving’s final argument is that applying the weapons disenfranchisement contained in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) to him violates his Second Amendment rights because of the nature of his prior convictions. ... This argument is now foreclosed by our decision in Folajtar. ... We there held that the legislature’s designation of an offense as a felony is generally conclusive in determining whether the offense is sufficiently serious to fall outside Second Amendment protections. ... Like Folajtar’s crime, Hunt-Irving’s predicate convictions include the intent to defraud, and necessarily entail deceit.

Section 922(g)(9)’s firearm possession ban is constitutional as applied to a servicemember convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

United States v. Silvernail · filed 2021-08-25(g)(9)

We find nothing in the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller or in the decisions by other federal circuits that would cause us to adopt a strict scrutiny framework for reviewing Appellant’s challenge to the Lautenberg Amendment or to overrule this court’s decision in Smith. Accordingly, we reject Appellant’s as-applied challenges to both Charge I and Charge IV, and we find no constitutional infirmity with either conviction.

Under controlling Tenth Circuit precedent, § 922(g)(1) does not permit an individualized Second Amendment challenge based on a felon’s circumstances.

Vincent v. Garland · filed 2021-10-05(g)(1)

Thus, Vincent’s as-applied challenges to §§ 922(g)(1) and 76-10-503(3)(a) fail as a matter of law.

Section 922(g)(1) is not unconstitutional as applied merely because a felon possessed a firearm at home for self-defense.

United States v. Williams · filed 2022-02-01(g)(1)

Given the “assurances” in Heller and McDonald, id. at 786, both of which involved possession of firearms in the home, we reject Williams’s contention that the location of his firearm in the home for the alleged purpose of self-defense, by itself, makes § 922(g)(1) unconstitutional as applied to him.

Section 922(g)(1)’s firearm prohibition is constitutional as applied to a person whose disqualifying offense is serious under the Third Circuit’s factors.

STIFFLER v. GARLAND · filed 2022-02-02(g)(1)

The Court concludes that Mr. Stiffler’s offense is “serious” as defined under Third Circuit precedent, and therefore, § 922(g) is constitutional as applied to him.

Section 922(g)(1) may bar firearm possession by a person convicted of a non-violent financial felony without burdening conduct protected by the Second Amendment.

Zherka v. Barr · filed 2022-03-23(g)(1)

Accordingly, this Court, guided by the Second Circuit and a chorus of other courts of appeals, holds that the application of Section 922(g)(1) to individuals convicted of non-violent financial felonies, like Plaintiff, does not impinge upon conduct protected by the Second Amendment.

Section 922(g)(1) bars a person convicted of mail fraud punishable by more than one year in prison from possessing a firearm, even if the person received probation.

Atkinson v. Rosen · filed 2022-03-15(g)(1)

Atkinson’s claim that he is somehow special lacks merit; he is no more entitled to possess a firearm than Kanter, Hatfield, or any other convicted felon.

Section 922(g)(1) bars firearm possession by a repeat Pennsylvania DUI offender whose conviction was punishable by up to five years in prison, and the bar survives his as-applied Second Amendment challenge.

Williams v. Jeff Sessions · filed 2022-05-12(g)(1)

Thus, the federal felon-in-possession statute bars certain Pennsylvania DUI offenders from possessing a firearm. ... This Circuit adheres to binding precedent,18 and because Williams brings the same legal challenge on remarkably similar facts as Holloway, his case must meet the same fate as Holloway’s prior precedential case.

Section 922(g)(1)'s felon-in-possession ban survived the plaintiff's Second Amendment challenge.

Campiti v. Garland · filed 2023-01-10(g)(1)

The felon-in-possession ban the plaintiff challenges is consistent with our historical tradition of firearm regulations.

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

Shipley v. Hijar · filed 2023-01-20(g)(1)

Based on this review of Fifth Circuit and Supreme Court precedent, the Court finds that § 922(g)(1) does not run afoul of the Second Amendment, the statute is constitutionally sound, and Shipley’s claim is without merit.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by felons is not unconstitutional under Bruen as applied to a person who is not law-abiding.

Battles v. United States · filed 2023-01-20(g)(1)

Movant is not a law-abiding citizen, “and regulations governing non-law abiding citizens’ use of firearms do not implicate Bruen.”

An unpreserved challenge to § 922(g)(1) under Bruen does not establish plain error when no binding precedent holds the provision unconstitutional and Bruen does not clearly require that result.

United States v. Roy · filed 2023-04-25(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, Roy is unable to demonstrate an error that is clear or obvious.

A Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) does not establish plain error when no binding precedent holds it unconstitutional and Bruen does not clearly require that result.

United States v. Pickett · filed 2023-05-02(g)(1)

Because there is no binding precedent holding that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional and it is not clear that Bruen dictates such a conclusion, Pickett is unable to demonstrate the requisite clear-or-obvious error.

A Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) does not establish plain error when no binding precedent holds it unconstitutional and Bruen does not clearly require that result.

United States v. Johnson · filed 2023-05-12(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, Johnson is unable to demonstrate an error that is clear or obvious.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by felons is constitutional as applied to a person with prior drug felony convictions.

United States v. Jackson · filed 2023-06-02(g)(1)

We conclude that the district court was correct that § 922(g)(1) is not unconstitutional as applied to Jackson based on his particular felony convictions.

A Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) requires analysis of the text and historical tradition under Bruen.

Atkinson v. Garland · filed 2023-06-20(g)(1)

The best way forward, as we see it, is to return the case to the district court for a proper, fulsome analysis of the historical tradition supporting § 922(g)(1).

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by felons is consistent with the Second Amendment as applied to a person with prior convictions for assault with a deadly weapon and firearm offenses.

Nicks v. United States · filed 2023-07-05(g)(1)

Therefore, applying the Bruen test, Petitioner’s § 922(g)(1) conviction is valid because prohibiting a felon such as Petitioner from possessing a firearm is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition.

Section 922(g)(1)’s ban on firearm possession by felons and § 922(a)(6)’s ban on materially false statements when purchasing firearms survived Second Amendment challenges as applied to a convicted felon with a violent firearms history.

Antoine v. United States · filed 2023-08-29(g)(1), (a)(6)

Based on this precedent, the Court easily concludes that § 922(g)(1)’s felon in possession prohibition is consistent with this Nation’s history and tradition. ... For the reasons described, the Court finds § 922(a)(6) to be consistent with this Nation’s history and tradition and not unconstitutional as applied to Antoine.

A Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) does not establish plain error absent binding authority deeming the provision unconstitutional.

United States v. Smith · filed 2023-09-08(g)(1)

Consequently, given the lack of binding authority deeming § 922(g)(1) unconstitutional, Smith cannot demonstrate an error that is clear or obvious.

Convictions under § 922(j) and (k) are not plain error on Second Amendment grounds when those provisions are not clearly unconstitutional under current law.

United States v. Ramadan · filed 2023-10-12(j), (k)

That’s especially true here because neither our court nor the Supreme Court has determined the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(k), 18 U.S.C. § 922(j), and 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) vis-à-vis the Second Amendment. ... Because we are unable to say that the challenged statutes are plainly or obviously unconstitutional, we find no plain error in Ramadan’s convictions.

Section 922(g)(1)’s ban on firearm possession by convicted felons is not plainly unconstitutional under Bruen on an unpreserved facial challenge.

United States v. Fulwiler · filed 2023-10-27(g)(1)

He appears to be making a facial challenge to § 922(g)(1). ... We join in those decisions and find a lack of clear of obvious error. Accordingly, we affirm the conviction.

Section 922(g)(1) prohibits firearm possession by a person convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year of imprisonment; rehabilitation and nonviolence did not exempt the plaintiff from that prohibition.

Collins III v. Garland · filed 2023-10-20(g)(1)

Plaintiff been convicted ofa crime that is punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year and is thus subject to § 922(g)(1)’s prohibition.

Section 922(g)(1)’s application to a convicted felon was not plain error under the Second Amendment because its constitutionality after Bruen remained unsettled.

United States v. EtchisonBrown · filed 2023-11-07(g)(1)

Because the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) after Bruen is far from settled and there is no controlling authority, the district court’s application of § 922(g)(1) to EtchisonBrown was not plain error.

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

Garrett v. United States · filed 2023-11-08(g)(1)

Thus, Petitioner’s argument that his conviction under § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment is squarely foreclosed by Rozier.

Section 922(g)(1)'s firearm ban violates the Second Amendment as applied to this plaintiff based on his past DUI conviction because the government failed to establish a comparable historical restriction.

WILLIAMS v. SESSIONS · filed 2023-11-14(g)(1)

The application of Section 922(g)(1) to Plaintiff, therefore, constitutes a violation of his Second Amendment rights, and the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to the requested relief.

Section 922(g)(1)’s firearm ban applies to a person convicted of felony tax evasion despite a Second Amendment challenge based on the offense’s nonviolent nature.

Baisden v. Barr · filed 2023-11-15(g)(1)

While Baisden protests that “Section 922’s prohibition on nonviolent felons from bearing arms is an unconstitutional burden that cannot be justified,” ECF 14 ¶ 95, his argument is foreclosed by D.C. Circuit precedent rejecting a near-identical challenge to Section 922.

An unpreserved Second Amendment challenge to § 922(d)(1) fails plain error review when invalidating the provision would require extending existing precedent.

United States v. Sanches · filed 2023-11-15(d)(1)

At bottom, the most Sanches can say is that Bruen could be extended to cover § 922(d)(1). That is, as our recent precedent makes clear, not enough to pass plain error muster.

Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to a person with decades-old, nonviolent convictions under controlling Tenth Circuit precedent.

Fears v. Garland · filed 2023-11-27(g)(1)

Under McCane, as reaffirmed by Vincent, Section 922(g)(1) presents no Second Amendment problem. It is constitutional as applied to Fears.

An unpreserved Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) does not establish plain error when its alleged unconstitutionality is neither clear nor obvious.

United States v. Forbito · filed 2023-11-30(g)(1)

The absence of precedent, ambiguity of Bruen’s application to § 922(g)(1), and the differing conclusions drawn by other circuit’s contemplating the very issue on this appeal issue evidence that Forbito cannot demonstrate an error that is clear or obvious.

Section 922(g)(1)’s ban on firearm possession by felons is facially constitutional, and circuit precedent forecloses as-applied Second Amendment challenges to it.

United States v. Doss · filed 2023-12-01(g)(1)

We begin with the Second Amendment challenge. In Doss’s view, the federal statute criminalizing possession of firearms by felons, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), is unconstitutional after New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), both on its face and as applied to him. Although the law in this area is still in flux, we have already rejected this argument in two recent cases. See United States v. Cunningham, 70 F.4th 502, 506 (8th Cir. 2023) (concluding that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional); United States v. Jackson, 69 F.4th 495, 502 (8th Cir. 2023) (cutting off as-applied challenges to the statute). Together, they spell the end for Doss’s constitutional challenge.

An unpreserved Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) fails plain-error review when its constitutionality after Bruen remains unsettled.

United States v. Jones · filed 2023-12-08(g)(1)

Accordingly, we conclude that Jones has failed to demonstrate that the district court’s ap- plication of § 922(g)(1) constitutes plain error.

An unpreserved Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) does not establish plain error after Bruen when no binding precedent makes the error clear.

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

Accordingly, we have repeatedly held that the lack of binding precedent on § 922(g)(1) after Bruen precludes a finding of plain error.

An unpreserved Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) does not establish plain error when no binding precedent holds the provision unconstitutional and Bruen does not clearly require that result.

United States v. Whitfield · filed 2023-12-14(g)(1)

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

An unpreserved Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) does not establish plain error when no binding precedent holds the section unconstitutional and Bruen does not clearly require that result.

United States v. Francis · filed 2023-12-19(g)(1)

There can be no plain error here because no binding precedent explicitly holds that Section 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional and it is not clear that Bruen dictates such a result.

An unpreserved Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) fails plain error review when the defendant cannot show a clear or obvious error.

United States v. Jackson · filed 2023-12-20(g)(1)

This court addressed the impact of Bruen on the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) in United States v. Jones, No. 23-10198, 2023 WL 8074295, at *1 (5th Cir. Nov. 21, 2023) (per curiam published opinion). ... Applying the same standard to the instant case yields the same result, and Jackson has not shown that any error was clear or obvious. Consequently, his appeal cannot survive plain error review.

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

Martinez v. United States · filed 2023-12-21(g)(1)

Thus, based on binding Fifth Circuit and Supreme Court precedent, the court disagrees that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment.

Section 922(g)(1)’s ban on firearm possession by felons is not clearly or obviously unconstitutional under Bruen on plain-error review.

United States v. Murray · filed 2024-01-02(g)(1)

Second, Murray argues that § 922(g) violates the Second Amendment under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). This ... argument is foreclosed, too. In a recently published opinion, we held that § 922(g)(1) is not clearly or obviously unconstitutional under Bruen.

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

Ivy v. United States · filed 2024-01-04(g)(1)

Because the statute under which petitioner was convicted ... does not violate the Second Amendment, Bruen does not state a new rule of law that would retroactively affect his felon in possession conviction.”

A Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) does not establish plain error because the provision’s unconstitutionality is not clear or obvious under current law.

United States v. Hoyle · filed 2024-01-12(g)(1)

However, such a plain error challenge to § 922(g)(1) is unavailing because, given the current state of the caselaw, it is not clear or obvious that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional.

An unpreserved Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) fails on plain-error review when the defendant cannot show clear or obvious error.

United States v. Bartolomei · filed 2024-01-23(g)(1)

Because Bartolomei did not raise his arguments before the district court, we review them for plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 134 (2009). He cannot show a clear or obvious error. See United States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 573-74 (5th Cir. 2023). Bartolomei’s contention is therefore unavailing.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by convicted felons presents no clear or obvious Second Amendment error under Bruen on plain error review.

United States v. Carrasco · filed 2024-01-23(g)(1)

Carrasco’s Bruen argument is unavailing. We recently rejected the argument, considered under the plain error standard, that § 922(g)(1) infringes the Second Amendment under Bruen.

Section 922(g)(1) does not present a clear or obvious Second Amendment violation under Bruen when no binding precedent holds it unconstitutional.

United States v. Davis · filed 2024-01-25(g)(1)

Because no binding precedent concludes § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment, our court rejects plain-error challenges to the provision under Bruen.

An unpreserved Second Amendment challenge to Section 922(g)(1) based on Bruen does not establish plain error without binding authority dictating that the provision is unconstitutional.

United States v. Cuevas · filed 2024-01-26(g)(1)

However, neither Bruen nor Rahimi dictates such a result for Section 922(g)(1), and this lack of binding authority is dispositive.

A Bruen challenge to § 922(g)(1) raised for the first time on appeal does not establish plain error when the statute’s unconstitutionality is not clear or obvious under current law.

United States v. Bowers · filed 2024-01-31(g)(1)

Because it is not “clear or obvious” that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional in light of ... Bruen, Bowers has not shown that his conviction constituted plain error.

An unpreserved Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) cannot establish plain error while Bruen’s effect on the provision remains unclear.

United States v. Stovall · filed 2024-02-07(g)(1)

Because Bruen’s effect on § 922(g)(1) is yet unclear, see id. at 573–74, Stovall cannot establish that his conviction amounts to plain error.

An unpreserved Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) under Bruen does not establish clear or obvious error on plain-error review.

United States v. Staples · filed 2024-02-08(g)(1)

Staples cannot show the requisite clear-or-obvious error. United States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 573–74 (5th Cir. 2023) (rejecting plain-error challenge to § 922(g)(1) under Bruen).

A conviction under § 922(g)(1) is not plainly erroneous on an unpreserved Second Amendment challenge under existing Fifth Circuit precedent.

United States v. Reyna · filed 2024-02-08(g)(1)

Accordingly, we conclude that there is no plain error in the district court’s conviction or sentencing of Reyna under § 922(g)(1).

Section 922(g)(1) may be applied to a person with a long, serious criminal history despite an as-applied Second Amendment challenge, at least under plain-error review.

United States v. Hall · filed 2024-02-09(g)(1)

But Range involved an as-applied challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 924(g)(1) by someone with a single, decades-old conviction of minor welfare fraud. Id. at 98–99. Nothing in that decision suggests that it applies to someone with Hall’s long, serious criminal history. We see no error, certainly not a plain one.

A first-time Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) fails plain-error review when no binding precedent holds the provision unconstitutional and Bruen does not clearly require that result.

United States v. Walters · filed 2024-02-09(g)(1)

“Given the absence of binding precedent holding that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional, and that it is unclear that Bruen dictates such a result,” we hold that Walters has “failed to demonstrate that the district court’s application of § 922(g)(1) constitutes plain error.”

A Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) does not establish plain error under current Fifth Circuit precedent.

United States v. Gonzales · filed 2024-02-12(g)(1)

Our court has already held that such a plain error challenge to § 922(g)(1) is unavailing because, given the current state of the caselaw, it is not clear or obvious that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional. See United States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 573–74 (5th Cir. 2023). We are bound by this circuit precedent, and we apply it here.

A first-time Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) does not show plain error when no binding precedent holds the provision unconstitutional and Bruen does not clearly require that result.

United States v. Moore · filed 2024-02-16(g)(1)

As the Government contends, Moore’s argument that the district court plainly erred because § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional is foreclosed by United States v. Jones, 88 F. 4th 571, 573–74 (5th Cir. 2023). In Jones, we held that any error was not clear or obvious because there was no binding precedent holding that § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional and it was unclear that Bruen dictated such a result.

A challenge to § 922(g)(1) under Bruen does not establish plain error when no binding precedent holds the provision unconstitutional and Bruen does not clearly require that result.

United States v. Shinall · filed 2024-02-20(g)(1)

As the Government contends, Shinall’s argument that the district court plainly erred because § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional is foreclosed by United States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 574 (5th Cir. 2023). In Jones, we decided that any error was not clear or obvious because there was no binding precedent that held that § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional, and it was unclear that Bruen dictated such a result.

An unpreserved Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) does not establish plain error when no binding precedent holds the provision unconstitutional and Bruen does not clearly require that result.

United States v. Brown · filed 2024-03-04(g)(1)

In other words, 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, Brown is unable to demonstrate plain error.

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

Keefer v. United States · filed 2024-03-04(g)(1)

Bruen did not invalidate or render any federal statutes unconstitutional, including 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

Section 922(g)(1)’s ban on firearm possession by felons remains valid under the Second Amendment after Bruen under binding Eleventh Circuit precedent.

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

First, we explain that our precedent forecloses Dubois’s argument that section 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment.

Section 922(g)(1)’s felon firearm ban presents no clear or obvious Second Amendment error on plain-error review after Bruen.

United States v. Thomas · filed 2024-03-07(g)(1)

As the Government contends, Thomas’s argument that the district court plainly erred because § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional is foreclosed by United States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 573-74 (5th Cir. 2023). In Jones, we held that any error was not clear or obvious because there was no binding precedent holding that § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional and it was unclear that Bruen dictated such a result.

Section 922(g)(1) may constitutionally prohibit a felon with prior violent convictions from possessing a firearm.

Boatwright v. United States · filed 2024-03-08(g)(1)

Because Section 922(g)(1) constitutionally prohibited Boatwright, a felon with prior convictions for violent crimes, from possessing a firearm, his Second Amendment claim is meritless.

An unpreserved Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) does not warrant relief on plain error review when a circuit split leaves its constitutionality unsettled.

United States v. Heard-White · filed 2024-03-11(g)(1)

A circuit split, like we have here, “precludes a finding of plain error.” Id. And without a finding of plain error, we cannot provide Defendant with relief on this issue.

Section 922(g)(1)’s constitutionality under Bruen is reasonably disputed, so a Second Amendment challenge raised for the first time on appeal does not establish plain error.

United States v. Alvarado · filed 2024-03-18(g)(1)

We agree that the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) under Bruen is subject to reasonable dispute and will not disturb Alvarado’s conviction on plain error review.

An unpreserved Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) fails plain-error review when controlling precedent makes any error unclear.

United States v. Jones · filed 2024-03-20(g)(1)

This court rejected another unpreserved Bruen challenge to § 922(g)(1) in United States v. Jones (Derrick Durrell Jones), 88 F.4th 571 (5th Cir. 2023), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Feb. 13, 2024), because any error was not clear or obvious. As the Government argues, that case is dispositive here.

A Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) under Bruen does not establish plain error when no binding precedent holds the provision unconstitutional.

United States v. Hodges · filed 2024-03-11(g)(1)

As the Government contends, Hodges’s argument that the district court plainly erred because Section 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional is foreclosed by United States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 573–74 (5th Cir. 2023).

An unpreserved Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) based on Bruen fails under plain-error review in the Fifth Circuit.

United States v. Terrazas · filed 2024-03-27(g)(1)

We recently rejected a plain-error Bruen challenge to § 922(g)(1). See United States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 574 (5th Cir. 2023), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Feb. 13, 2024) (No. 23-6769). Terrazas’s challenge is likewise unavailing.

An unpreserved Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) does not establish plain error when no binding precedent holds the provision unconstitutional and Bruen does not clearly require that result.

United States v. Otunba · filed 2024-03-28(g)(1)

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

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by convicted felons does not violate the Second Amendment, either facially or as applied.

Ferebee v. USA - 2255 · filed 2024-04-01(g)(1)

The wealth of cases referenced above inescapably leads to the conclusion that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) does not violate the Second Amendment, either facially or as applied.

Section 922(g)(1) constitutionally prohibits a felon whose firearm rights have not been restored from possessing firearms and ammunition, even after Bruen.

Grimsley v. United States · filed 2024-04-02(g)(1)

Consequently, because § 922(g)(1) constitutionally prohibited Grimsley, a felon whose right to possess firearms and ammunition had not been restored, from possessing firearms and ammunition, his Bruen-based Second Amendment claim lacks merit.

A Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(9) and § 922(n) does not establish plain error when their unconstitutionality under Bruen is unclear and would require extending precedent.

United States v. Reese · filed 2024-04-05(g)(9), (n)

Reese cannot show that any error was clear or obvious because it is unclear whether § 922(g)(9) and § 922(n) are unconstitutional in view of Bruen and the application of Bruen to those statutes would require the extension of precedent.

Section 922(g)(1)’s ban on firearm possession by convicted felons remains valid against a Second Amendment challenge based on Bruen.

United States v. Jones · filed 2024-04-10(g)(1)

But we recently rejected a similar argument and held that Bruen did not abrogate Rozier. ... As a subsequent panel, we are bound by Dubois, which fore- closes Mr. Jones’ Bruen-based challenge to his § 922(g)(1) convic- tion.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by felons is enforceable against a parolee with serious felony convictions despite an as-applied Second Amendment challenge.

United States v. Gay · filed 2024-04-12(g)(1)

Just as Samson holds that parolees lack the same privacy rights as free persons, we conclude that parolees lack the same armament rights as free persons.

A Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) under Bruen fails on plain-error review when circuit precedent does not establish a clear error.

United States v. Lovings · filed 2024-04-16(g)(1)

In Jones, we considered whether § 922(g)(1) violated the Second Amendment in light of Bruen and concluded Jones had “failed to demonstrate that the district court’s application of § 922(g)(1) constitutes plain error.” ... Lovings’s argument is foreclosed by Jones, and his refusal to concede the point does not preclude summary affirmance.

Section 922(g)(3) is not facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment because it has constitutional applications to some drug users and addicts.

United States v. Veasley · filed 2024-04-17(g)(3)

The fact that the analogy works for some, and that the mentally ill sometimes lost their guns, means that § 922(g)(3) cannot be facially unconstitutional.

An unpreserved challenge to § 922(g)(3) under Bruen fails on plain-error review when the constitutional issue remains unsettled.

United States v. Gordon Swartz, IV · filed 2024-04-17(g)(3)

Lastly, we reject Swartz’s argument that he is not a “prohibited person” under § 922(g), USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), and USSG § 2K2.1(c)(1)(A). Although Swartz argues that the foregoing provisions are unconstitutional (as applied to him) under Bruen, Swartz did not raise this argument in the district court. After reviewing this assignment of error for plain error, we reject Swartz’s argument.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on felons possessing ammunition was not plainly unconstitutional as applied after Bruen; the right to possess a firearm implies a corresponding right to possess ammunition.

United States v. Cameron · filed 2024-04-18(g)(1)

However, we note that the right to possess a firearm implies a corresponding right to possess the ammunition necessary to use it. Bruen did not differentiate between regulations governing ammunition and regulations governing the firearms themselves. Given the coextensive nature of these rights, we discern no plain error.

An unpreserved Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) does not establish plain error when there is no binding precedent on the issue and other circuits disagree.

United States v. Ratliff · filed 2024-04-24(g)(1)

Recently, we rejected a plain-error challenge to the constitutionality of Section 922(g)(1) under the Second Amendment, holding that the appellant could not demonstrate a plain error in light of the lack of binding precedent on point and the divergent decisions reached by other circuit courts on the same issue. ... Thus, the Government’s position that Ratliff cannot demonstrate a plain error on this basis is “clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case,” meaning that summary affirmance is appropriate.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by felons is not clearly unconstitutional under Bruen for purposes of plain error review.

United States v. Purdy · filed 2024-05-01(g)(1)

Because it is not clear that Bruen or other existing precedent dictates that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional, Purdy cannot show plain error.

Section 922(g)(3) withstands a facial Second Amendment challenge because it fits within the historical tradition of firearm regulation.

Gilpin v. United States · filed 2024-05-02(g)(3)

In Veasley, which was decided after Bruen, we rejected the defendant’s facial challenge to § 922(g)(3) under the Second Amendment. Id. at *9. We held that, for purposes of a facial challenge, § 922(g)(3) fits within the historical tradition of firearm regulation. Id. Therefore, we reject Gilpin’s facial challenge as foreclosed by Veasley.

A Bruen challenge to a § 922(g)(1) felon-in-possession conviction is foreclosed on plain-error review by Fifth Circuit precedent.

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

Gray’s contention that his § 922(g)(1) convictions are unconstitutional in the light of Bruen is foreclosed by United States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 573–74 (5th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, No. 23-6769, 2024 WL 1143799 (U.S. 18 Mar. 2024).

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

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

As extensively discussed in the Government’s response, the Court agrees that the history and tradition of the Second Amendment indicate that § 922(g)(1) does not constitute an unconstitutional regulation of the possession of firearms or ammunition.

An unpreserved Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) does not establish plain error when no binding precedent makes the alleged error clear or obvious.

United States v. Taylor · filed 2024-05-08(g)(1)

As the Government argues, Taylor’s unpreserved, Bruen-based argument is foreclosed by our opinion in United States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 573-74 (5th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 2024 WL 1143799 (U.S. March 18, 2024) (No. 23-6769). In Jones, 88 F.4th at 573-74, we rejected a similar plain-error challenge to the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) under the Second Amendment, reasoning that any error was not clear or obvious due to the lack of binding precedent and the divergent decisions reached by other circuit courts.

Section 922(g)(1)’s ban on firearm possession by convicted felons does not present plain error under Bruen because existing Tenth Circuit precedent upholds it.

United States v. Rosado · filed 2024-05-09(g)(1)

Because our precedent is settled “that Bruen did not indisputably and pellucidly abrogate” our ... precedent confirming the constitutionality of the ban on convicted felons’ possession of firearms, we affirm Mr. Rosado’s conviction.

An as-applied challenge to § 922(g)(3) requires the court to determine whether a regular marihuana user belongs to a historically comparable group that could be disarmed.

United States v. Gil · filed 2024-05-15(g)(3)

Here, the district court erred in invoking historical laws disarming dangerous groups to uphold the facial constitutionality of § 922(g)(3). ... On remand, the district court must determine whether Gil, as a regular marihuana user or addict, was part of a dangerous group analogous to political and religious dissidents who could be disarmed at the time the Second Amendment was ratified.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by felons withstands facial and as-applied Second Amendment challenges without felony-by-felony review.

United States v. Lindsey · filed 2024-05-16(g)(1)

Accordingly, his facial and as-applied constitutional challenges to § 922(g)(1) fail.

A Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) raised for the first time on appeal fails under plain-error review when no precedent expressly holds the provision unconstitutional and Bruen’s effect is unclear.

United States v. Storck · filed 2024-05-16(g)(1)

We reject Second Amendment challenges to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) under plain error review, because there is no “precedent explicitly holding that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional and because it is unclear that Bruen dictates such a result.” United States v. Johnson, 95 F.4th 404, 417 (6th Cir. 2024).

A Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) raised for the first time on appeal fails plain-error review when no binding precedent establishes the claimed error and other circuits disagree.

United States v. Cuevas · filed 2024-05-22(g)(1)

Recently, we rejected a plain-error challenge to the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) under the Second Amendment, holding that the appellant could not demonstrate plain error in light of the lack of binding precedent on point and the divergent decisions reached by other circuit courts on the same issue. Id. at 573-74. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the district court as to this claim.

An unpreserved Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) does not establish clear or obvious error under existing Fifth Circuit precedent.

United States v. Woods · filed 2024-05-24(g)(1)

We rejected another unpreserved Bruen challenge to § 922(g)(1) in United States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571 (5th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 2024 WL 1143799, at *1 (U.S. Mar. 18, 2024) (No. 23-6769), because any error was not clear or obvious. As the Government argues, that case is dispositive here.

Section 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional because it can constitutionally prohibit at least some people convicted of serious crimes from possessing firearms.

United States v. Canada · filed 2024-06-03(g)(1)

No matter which analytical path we choose, they all lead to the same destination: Section 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.”

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

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

Because our precedent forecloses not only Gaiter’s facial challenge but also his as-applied one, the district court did not err in denying his motion to dismiss.

Section 922(g)(1) constitutionally prohibits convicted felons from possessing firearms and ammunition despite a Second Amendment challenge.

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

Consequently, because § 922(g)(1) constitutionally prohibited Williams, a convicted felon, from possessing firearms and ammunition, his as-applied challenge to the constitutionality of § 922(g) also lacks merit.

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

United States v. Mayfield · filed 2024-06-10(g)(1)

Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm the district court’s decision rejecting Defendant’s attack on the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

Section 922(g)(1) withstands an as-applied Second Amendment challenge by a person with nonviolent felony convictions under binding Tenth Circuit precedent.

Lawrence v. Garland · filed 2024-06-14(g)(1)

Mr. Lawrence timely appealed, but his briefs on appeal challenge only the ... dismissal of the federal defendants and only the ruling with respect to § 922(g)(1). ... We affirm the challenged dismissal by the district court. Mr. Lawrence acknowledges that the very arguments he makes in this case were rejected by this Court in Vincent. The thrust of his brief on appeal amounts to no more than that Vincent was wrongly decided. But this panel is bound by our circuit’s precedent.

A Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) under Bruen does not establish plain error when raised for the first time on appeal.

United States v. Hamilton · filed 2024-06-17(g)(1)

As Hamilton concedes, this contention is foreclosed by our recent rejection of a plain-error challenge to § 922(g)(1) under Bruen.

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

United States v. Willems Calixte, Jr. · filed 2024-06-18(g)(1)

There- fore, Calixte’s argument that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment in light of Bruen is foreclosed by our binding prece- dent.

A Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) does not establish plain error when no binding precedent holds the felon possession ban unconstitutional after Bruen.

United States v. Steward · filed 2024-06-21(g)(1)

Steward’s argument that the district court plainly erred because § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional is foreclosed by United States v. Jones, 88 F. 4th 571, 573-74 (5th Cir. 2023). In Jones, we held that any error was not clear or obvious because there was no binding precedent holding that § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional and it was unclear that Bruen dictated such a result. Id.

Applying § 922(g)(1) to a person with a recent firearm conviction who remained on parole was not plainly unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

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

Given the sea-change effected by Bruen, and considering the narrowness of our decision in Range, we conclude that there can be reasonable debate as to whether the Second Amendment permits disarmament of an individual with a four-year-old conviction for possession of a firearm ... without a license and who was laboring under a criminal sentence at the time of the offense conduct. Any Second Amendment error inherent in Dorsey’s conviction therefore was not plain.

Section 922(g)(1)’s felon firearm ban survives a facial Second Amendment challenge and was constitutional as applied to a person with serious drug, firearm, and assault convictions.

Jenkins v. United States · filed 2024-06-26(g)(1)

Accordingly, the Petitioner’s § 922(g) challenges are meritless.

Section 922(g)(8) permits temporary disarmament under a qualifying restraining order when a court has found that the person poses a credible threat to another’s physical safety.

United States v. Rahimi · filed 2024-06-21(g)(8)

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

A court does not plainly err by applying § 922(g)(1) to a person with recent robbery and firearms convictions who committed the offense while on probation.

United States v. Fadiga · filed 2024-07-09(g)(1)

Neither Bruen nor Range show that the District Court plainly erred by failing to sua sponte find § 922(g)(1) unconstitutional as applied to Fadiga.

Binding Eleventh Circuit precedent forecloses a plain error Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1)’s ban on firearm possession by felons after Bruen and Rahimi.

United States v. Johnson · filed 2024-07-11(g)(1)

Johnson challenges the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which generally prohibits individuals with felony con- victions from possessing firearms or ammunition. ... We conclude that he has not established plain error.

Section 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional because it has a plainly legitimate sweep and can be applied constitutionally in at least some circumstances.

United States v. Mark Craig, II · filed 2024-07-18(g)(1)

We recently considered and rejected the same argument in United States v. Canada, holding that “Section 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) (internal quotation marks omitted). Canada, we conclude, clearly forecloses Craig’s challenge to the validity of his conviction.

A Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1)’s ban on firearm possession by felons fails plain error review under binding Eleventh Circuit precedent.

United States v. Young · filed 2024-07-19(g)(1)

Young cannot demonstrate plain error because he has not identified any on-point precedent from this Court or the United States Supreme Court holding that § 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on fel- ons possessing firearms is unconstitutional. To the contrary, Young’s constitutional argument is foreclosed by precedent.

Section 922(g)(1) may constitutionally bar a person with a violent and extensive criminal history from possessing a firearm.

Smith v. United States · filed 2024-07-23(g)(1)

But even assuming it does, Smith’s claim still fails at the second step because Section 922(g)(1) “has long withstood judicial scrutiny” as a constitutional criminal offense proscribed by Congress. ... Smith––whose criminal history is violent and extensive––falls squarely in the class of people that Congress lawfully and deliberately chose to exclude from being able to possess a firearm.

On plain-error review, the Second Amendment does not clearly bar applying § 922(g)(1) to a person with a recent drug-trafficking felony whose guns were found near illegal drugs.

United States v. Rodriguez · filed 2024-07-24(g)(1)

Accordingly, Rodriguez has not cited to any binding, current caselaw that the Second Amendment prohibits disarming people similarly situated to him, so Rodriguez’s challenge does not survive plain error review.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by people convicted of felonies is constitutional on its face and as applied to Lewis.

United States v. Lewis · filed 2024-07-29(g)(1)

Thus, Rahimi further supports the court’s conclusion that Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional both facially and as applied to Mr. Lewis.

An unpreserved Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) or § 922(k) fails plain-error review without on-point precedent holding the prohibition unconstitutional.

United States v. Townsel · filed 2024-07-31(g)(1), (k)

But Townsel cannot show plain error because he has not identified any on-point precedent from this Court or the United States Supreme Court holding that the prohibitions set forth in § 922(g)(1) or § 922(k) violate the Second Amendment.

Section 922(g)(3)’s firearm ban for unlawful users of controlled substances is not facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

United States v. Avontae Tucker · filed 2024-08-02(g)(3)

We reject Tucker’s facial challenge to § 922(g)(3) because, since this appeal, another panel of this court held the law is not facially unconstitutional.

Section 922(g)(1)'s ban on firearm possession by felons is not plainly unconstitutional as applied to a person with prior Maine convictions for theft and drug trafficking.

United States v. Langston · filed 2024-08-02(g)(1)

In sum, Langston fails to show that § 922(g)(1) clearly and obviously violates the Second Amendment as applied to him, given his previous convictions under Maine law for theft and drug trafficking.

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

United States v. Lowe · filed 2024-08-05(g)(1)

As we recently held in United States v. Dubois, Bruen did not abrogate our prior precedent holding that § 922(g)(1) does not violate the Second Amendment.

A Bruen challenge to § 922(g)(1) raised for the first time on appeal is foreclosed in the Fifth Circuit because any error is not plain.

United States v. Kerr · filed 2024-08-06(g)(1)

For the first time on appeal, Kerr additionally argues that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional, relying on New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). His unpreserved Bruen challenge is foreclosed by our opinion in United States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 573-74 (5th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 1081 (2024), which rejected another such challenge on the ground that any error was not plain.

Section 922(g)(1) may constitutionally prohibit a convict on supervised release from possessing a firearm.

United States v. Moore · filed 2024-08-02(g)(1)

A convict completing his sentence on supervised release does not have a Second Amendment right to possess a firearm. So 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to Moore, and we will affirm his judgment of conviction.

Section 922(g)(1)'s ban on firearm possession by convicted felons is constitutional as applied to a person with nonviolent drug felony convictions.

United States v. Jackson · filed 2024-08-08(g)(1)

We conclude that the district court was correct that § 922(g)(1) is not unconstitutional as applied to Jackson based on his particular felony convictions.

Section 922(g)(3) is constitutional as applied to a person whose possession of firearms while unlawfully using and being addicted to a controlled substance poses a danger to the public.

Hasson v. USA - 2255 · filed 2024-08-08(g)(3)

Given this, the evidence in this case makes clear that Section 922(g)(3) is constitutional as applied to Mr. Hasson, because he posed a danger to the public by possessing firearms while being an unlawful user of, and addicted to, a controlled substance.

Section 922(g)(5)(A) bars firearm possession by noncitizens unlawfully in the United States, and that prohibition is consistent with the Second Amendment.

United States v. Ramirez · filed 2024-08-12(g)(5)(A)

A federal statute bars noncitizens unlaw- fully in the United States from possessing firearms. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A). ... But we have held that this prohi- bition is “consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and his- tory” and “passes constitutional muster.” ... Accord- ingly, we affirm his conviction on the firearm charge.

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

United States v. Lowry · filed 2024-08-15(g)(1)

Lowry also argues that his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violates his constitutional right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment. Lowry’s contention is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Jackson, No. 22-2870, 2024 WL 3711155, at *4 (8th Cir. Aug. 8, 2024).

Section 922(g)(1) cannot be held unconstitutional on plain-error review while its constitutionality under Bruen remains unsettled.

United States v. Burrell · filed 2024-08-15(g)(1)

Prior panels of this court have made clear that any challenge to the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) cannot survive plain-error review.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by felons remains constitutional after Bruen and Rahimi.

Bailey v. Attorney General · filed 2024-08-15(g)(1)

This Court finds that the Sixth Circuit decision in Carey upholding the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) remains good law after Bruen and Rahimi.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by convicted felons remains enforceable against a Second Amendment challenge under binding Eleventh Circuit precedent after Bruen and Rahimi.

United States v. Bass · filed 2024-08-19(g)(1)

Bass’s claim fails under plain error review because he has identified no precedent from the Supreme Court or this Court holding that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment. ... Thus, Rozier is controlling in this case and, under Rozier, Bass’s claim necessarily fails.

Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional on its face and as applied to dangerous people.

United States v. Williams · filed 2024-08-23(g)(1)

To summarize, we hold today that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional on its face and as applied to dangerous people.

Section 922(g)(5)’s ban on firearm possession by aliens unlawfully present in the United States is constitutional under the Second Amendment.

United States v. Medina-Cantu · filed 2024-08-27(g)(5)

Accordingly, following the rule of orderliness, we are bound to follow Portillo-Munoz and uphold the constitutionality of § 922(g)(5) under the Second Amendment.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by felons remains constitutional under the Second Amendment under binding Eleventh Circuit precedent.

United States v. Thomas James Sheely, Jr. · filed 2024-08-30(g)(1)

Accordingly, our prior-panel-precedent rule forecloses Sheely’s arguments as to the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1).

An unpreserved Second Amendment challenge to a § 922(g)(1) conviction does not establish plain error when no binding precedent holds the provision unconstitutional under Bruen and its invalidity is not obvious.

United States v. Dennis Lynn Cartwright, Jr. · filed 2024-09-10(g)(1)

Because “[n]o binding case law addresses the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) in light of Bruen,” and because it is not obvious that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional under Bruen, we cannot say that Cartwright’s conviction constituted plain error.

A conviction under § 922(g)(1) is not plain error on an unpreserved as-applied Second Amendment challenge when binding precedent does not clearly establish that disarming the defendant is unconstitutional.

United States v. Brinson · filed 2024-09-12(g)(1)

Given the presumptively constitutional “longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons,” and the absence of a binding decision from the Supreme Court or our Court to the contrary, Brinson fails to establish that there can be no “reasonable dispute,” Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135, that disarming him, an individual who falls within that felon status, is unconstitutional. Thus, we conclude Brinson’s conviction pursuant to § 922(g)(1) was not plain error.

Facial Second Amendment challenges to § 922(g)(3) and (g)(9) raised for the first time on appeal fail under plain-error review absent a clear or obvious error under current law.

United States v. Colby Shannon, Jr. · filed 2024-09-18(g)(3), (g)(9)

We further conclude that Shannon’s facial challenges to sections 922(g)(3) and 922(g)(9) fail under plain-error review, as he has not demonstrated any error that was clear or obvious under current law.

Section 922(g)(1) may constitutionally disarm a person whose prior convictions include vehicle theft; that valid application also defeats a facial Second Amendment challenge.

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

Diaz also brings a facial challenge to § 922(g)(1). ... This Diaz cannot do, because the statute is constitutional as applied to the facts of his own case.

An unpreserved Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) is foreclosed on plain-error review under Fifth Circuit precedent.

United States v. Bell · filed 2024-09-27(g)(1)

For the first time on appeal, he contends that the statute violates the Second Amendment under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). As he concedes, this argument is foreclosed on plain error review by ... United States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 573-74 (5th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 1081 (2024).

Section 922(j)’s prohibition on stolen firearms and § 922(n)’s temporary restrictions on firearm transactions by people under felony indictment are facially valid under the Second Amendment.

United States v. Jaylan Miles Ra Shawn Gore · filed 2024-10-08(j), (n)

In at least some of its applications, § 922(j) is consistent with this nation’s tradition of regulating the purchase and receipt of goods known or believed to be stolen, so it is not facially unconstitutional. ... We confront a facial challenge, so ... our inquiry ends if § 922(n) “is constitutional in some of its applications.” Rahimi, 144 S. Ct. at 1898. It is.

Section 922(g)(1) may constitutionally bar firearm possession by a felon on probation who is subject to a firearm restriction when his criminal record shows a likelihood of future dangerous conduct.

United States v. Goins · filed 2024-10-08(g)(1)

Given these aspects of Goins’s case taken together, we hold that Congress could deprive Goins of his Second Amendment right to possess a firearm at the time of his § 922(g)(1) offense.

Section 922(g)(1)’s ban on firearm possession by felons is not plainly unconstitutional under the Second Amendment under Fifth Circuit precedent.

United States v. Howard · filed 2024-10-09(g)(1)

Howard argues that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Commerce Clause in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen, 592 U.S. at 17. ... First, Howard’s Second Amendment argument is foreclosed by our precedent.

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

United States v. Collette · filed 2024-10-10(g)(1)

On appeal, Collette renews his facial challenge to § 922(g)(1) pursuant to the Second Amendment. This challenge is now clearly foreclosed by Diaz.

Section 922(g)(8) withstands a Second Amendment challenge when the defendant was previously found to pose a credible threat to a partner’s physical safety.

United States v. Jones · filed 2024-10-14(g)(8)

Because the Supreme Court reversed our holding in Rahimi, and because Jones was previously found to be a credible threat to the physical safety of his partner, no further discussion of the panel’s opinion is warranted in this case.

Section 922(g)(1) may be applied to a person previously convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon despite Bruen.

United States v. Powell · filed 2024-10-16(g)(1)

The Court thus concludes that Bruen in no way prevents the application of 922(g)(1) to Powell.

Section 922(g)(1) withstands facial and as-applied Second Amendment challenges when applied to a felon whose violent criminal history shows he is dangerous.

United States v. Parham · filed 2024-10-17(g)(1)

Parham’s facial and as-applied challenges to § 922(g)(1) therefore fail. His criminal record contains numerous violent felonies, including two homicide-related convictions. For example, his attempted second-degree murder offense involved shooting a young child. Parham is exactly the type of individual our history and tradition allow Congress to disarm.

An unpreserved facial Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) fails on plain-error review when the statute’s unconstitutionality is unsettled.

United States v. Henry · filed 2024-10-17(g)(1)

There, our court rejected a plain-error challenge to § 922(g)(1) because “it is unclear that Bruen dictates such a result,” there is an “absence of binding precedent holding that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional,” and “[t]he Third and Eighth Circuits have . . . reached conflicting results” on the issue. ... Henry’s plain-error challenge fails.

Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional on its face and may be applied to a person whose prior convictions show dangerousness.

Thomas v. United States · filed 2024-10-17(g)(1)

Given the extensive authority set forth above, Defendant’s facial challenge to § 922(g)(1) fails. Moreover, any intended as-applied challenge also fails.