18 U.S.C. § 922

A Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) fails on plain-error review when binding Eleventh Circuit precedent forecloses it.

United States v. Tyrell Dukes · filed 2024-10-24(g)(1)

Dukes’s facial and as-applied challenges to § 922(g) fail under plain error review because ... he has not identified any precedent from the Supreme Court or this Court holding that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional.

Section 922(g)(1)’s application to a person with a substantial record of drug trafficking and violent felonies is not clearly unconstitutional under the Second Amendment on plain-error review.

United States v. Hewlett · filed 2024-10-24(g)(1)

Considering Hewlett’s substantial criminal record, it is not at all “clear or obvious” that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to him.

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

United States v. Barnes · filed 2024-10-28(g)(1)

As we’ve detailed, our precedent, to which we are bound to adhere, clearly establishes that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional under Bruen.

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

United States v. Gray · filed 2024-11-01(g)(1)

Since the precedential effect of our decisions in Dubois and Rozier holding that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional remains intact, we are bound to apply them under the prior-panel-precedent rule.

Section 922(g)(1)’s ban on firearm possession by people with felony convictions withstands a Second Amendment challenge under binding Eleventh Circuit precedent.

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

Under our precedent, Morrissette’s Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) fails.

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

Spears v. United States · filed 2024-11-19(g)(1)

Even if Spears’ motion were timely, it would fail on the merits. The Eleventh Circuit has held that § 922(g)(1) doesn’t violate the Second Amendment.

Section 922(g)(1)’s ban on firearm possession by felons survives a facial Second Amendment challenge under binding Sixth Circuit precedent.

United States v. Hurdle · filed 2024-11-20(g)(1)

Jeremy Hurdle argues that the federal statute barring felons from possessing firearms facially violates the Second Amendment. Because we recently rejected an identical challenge, our precedent forecloses Hurdle’s claim. We thus affirm.

Section 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional under the Second Amendment; a facial challenger must show that it has no valid applications.

United States v. French · filed 2024-11-20(g)(1)

So, naturally, Salerno applies to this facial challenge based on the Second Amendment. ... Under Salerno, French must “establish that no set of circumstances exists under which” the law “would be valid.”

Section 922(g)(1) may constitutionally prohibit firearm possession by a person convicted of violent felonies involving misuse of a firearm.

United States v. Bullock · filed 2024-11-25(g)(1)

Bullock, convicted of aggravated assault and manslaughter from his use of a firearm, may be constitutionally dispossessed of a firearm pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

Section 922(g)(1) may constitutionally prohibit a felon on probation from possessing a firearm.

United States v. Taylor · filed 2024-11-25(g)(1)

Because Taylor’s conviction under § 922(g)(1) does not run afoul of the Second Amendment, we affirm.

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

United States v. Anderson · filed 2024-11-27(g)(1)

On remand, our panels again ruled that § 922(g)(1) is not unconstitutional. ... These two Eighth Circuit decisions, which the district court properly ruled to be controlling precedent, are now final, subject to further Supreme Court review. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.

Section 922(g)(1)’s ban on firearm possession by felons survives a facial Second Amendment challenge.

United States v. Thompson · filed 2024-11-27(g)(1)

Turning to Thompson’s claim here that § 922(g)(1) is facially unconstitutional, it is clear that his challenge is now squarely foreclosed by our decision in Diaz.

A defendant with a burglary conviction cannot establish plain error in an as-applied Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) when precedent makes the statute’s constitutionality reasonably disputable.

United States v. Shakur Moss · filed 2024-11-27(g)(1)

Although Williams did not involve a defendant previously convicted of burglary, see id. at 662, its reasoning suggests that the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) as applied to Moss is, ... at a minimum, “subject to reasonable dispute,” Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135; see also United States v. Hewlett, No. 23-2040, 2024 WL 4564645, at *4 (6th Cir. Oct. 24, 2024) (explaining that a defendant’s previous felonies involving drug trafficking and violence obviated any purported plain error). Accordingly, Moss cannot meet his burden of showing plain error, and his as-applied challenge to § 922(g)(1) fails.

Section 922(g)(5) withstands a facial Second Amendment challenge in the Fifth Circuit; an unpreserved as-applied challenge fails without a showing of clear or obvious error.

United States v. Tuc · filed 2024-12-02(g)(5)

Turning to Barahona Tuc’s constitutional challenges, we again review for plain error only. See Jones, 88 F.4th at 572. The facial challenge is foreclosed by United States v. Medina-Cantu, 113 F.4th 537, 540-42 (5th Cir. 2024). The as-applied challenge fails because Barahona Tuc has not shown that any error was clear or obvious.

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

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

Hayes’s argument that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment is foreclosed by our decisions in United States v. Rozier, 598 F.3d 768 (11th Cir. 2010), and United States v. Dubois, 94 F.4th 1284 (11th Cir. 2024).

Section 922(g)(5) does not violate the Second Amendment under Bruen.

United States v. Fuentes · filed 2024-12-04(g)(5)

We likewise have rejected his contention that § 922(g)(5) violates the Second Amendment under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022).

Section 922(g)(1) permits an as-applied Second Amendment challenge by a person who can show they are not dangerous.

United States v. Marquis Lamonz Wellington · filed 2024-12-04(g)(1)

We also reject Wellington’s as-applied challenge to his § 922(g)(1) conviction. Individuals can bring as-applied challenges to their § 922(g)(1) convictions by showing they’re not “dangerous.” Id. at 663. To determine whether an individual is dangerous, courts must “make fact-specific dangerousness determinations after taking account of the unique circumstances of the individual.” Id. Wellington is dangerous given his convictions for drug trafficking and attempted domestic violence. See id. at 658–59. So, again the district court did not err, let alone plainly err.

Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional under Bruen as applied to a person with a violent record who possessed a firearm while dealing drugs.

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

First, the court has upheld § 922(g)(1)’s constitutionality under Bruen’s historical analysis, and Mr. Dawson offers no cogent reason to reconsider this decision. ... Nothing in Bruen changed the government’s power to protect the public by disarming Mr. Dawson—someone with a violent record.

Section 922(g)(9) does not facially violate the Second Amendment.

United States v. Bryant Turner · filed 2024-12-06(g)(9)

In Gailes, we held that § 922(g)(9) does not violate the Second Amendment on its face. Id. at 826–28. Thus, Turner’s facial challenge is without merit.

Section 922(g)(1) withstands a facial Second Amendment challenge and is constitutional as applied to a felon whose violent criminal history shows dangerousness.

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

Thus, as we did in Williams, we conclude that § 922(g)(1) “is not susceptible to a facial challenge.” Id. at 657. ... As a result, § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to him.

Section 922(g)(5)(A) withstands a Second Amendment challenge under Fifth Circuit precedent because illegal aliens are not members of the political community protected by that amendment.

United States v. Andrade-Hernandez · filed 2024-12-09(g)(5)(A)

In Medina-Cantu, we upheld the constitutionality of § 922(g)(5), explaining that under binding circuit precedent, illegal aliens are not “members of the political community” covered by the Second Amendment. ... Andrade-Hernandez’s appeal is therefore foreclosed by Medina-Cantu.

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

United States v. Parker · filed 2024-12-10(g)(1)

The Government is correct that Parker’s challenge is foreclosed.

Section 922(g)(1) withstands a facial Second Amendment challenge because it is constitutional in at least one set of circumstances.

United States v. Anderson · filed 2024-12-11(g)(1)

We recently denied an as-applied challenge to § 922(g)(1) and found the statute was “constitutional as applied to the facts” in United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 472 (5th Cir. 2024). Because “‘the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the statute would be valid’” to prevail on a facial challenge, Diaz’s conclusion that the statute was constitutional in those set of circumstances prevents a facial challenge here.

A Second Amendment challenge to a § 922(g)(1) conviction does not establish plain error when no binding precedent has held the provision unconstitutional.

United States v. Barnes · filed 2024-12-13(g)(1)

But no binding precedent of this Court or the Supreme Court has held that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional. Accordingly, we hold that the constitutional infirmity alleged by Barnes is not clear under current law and therefore see no reason to disturb his conviction on plain error review.

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

United States v. Dial · filed 2024-12-13(g)(1)

Under our precedent, Dial’s Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) fails. We affirm his conviction.

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

United States v. Lindsey · filed 2024-12-16(g)(1)

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

Section 922(g)(1) may constitutionally prohibit firearm possession by a felon whose criminal history demonstrates dangerousness.

United States v. Morton · filed 2024-12-16(g)(1)

Accordingly, Morton’s convictions demonstrate his dangerousness, making § 922(g)(1) constitutional as applied to him.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by felons is not facially invalid under the Second Amendment because it is constitutional in at least some applications.

United States v. Castro · filed 2024-12-16(g)(1)

Next, we turn to Castro’s contention that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional on its face in light of Bruen because its prohibition of firearm possession by felons covers conduct protected by the Second Amendment and lacks justification in the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. ... Thus, Diaz forecloses any challenge to the facial constitutionality of the statute. See id. Castro’s challenge on Bruen grounds fails.

Section 922(g)(1) withstands a facial Second Amendment challenge because at least one application is constitutional.

United States v. Haynes · filed 2024-12-17(g)(1)

We recently addressed a facial challenge to Section 922(g)(1), holding that facial challenges to the provision fail because at least one application is constitutional. United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 471–72 (5th Cir. 2024). As Haynes makes clear in his briefing, he raises only a facial challenge, not an as-applied challenge. Therefore, his sole issue on appeal is foreclosed. See United States v. French, 121 F.4th 538, 538 (5th Cir. 2024).

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by people convicted of felonies survives facial and as-applied Second Amendment challenges without an inquiry into each predicate felony.

United States v. Hunt · filed 2024-12-18(g)(1)

We also reject Hunt’s as-applied challenge. First, we conclude that neither Bruen nor Rahimi abrogates this Court’s precedent foreclosing as-applied challenges to Section 922(g)(1) and those decisions thus remain binding. Second—and in the alternative—we conclude that Section 922(g)(1) would pass constitutional muster even if we were unconstrained by circuit precedent.

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

United States v. Washington · filed 2024-12-20(g)(1)

This challenge, however, is foreclosed by our ... court’s very recent decision in United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 471–72 (5th Cir. 2024), holding § 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional under Bruen.

Section 922(g)(1) cannot constitutionally bar firearm possession by Range, who completed his sentence for food-stamp fraud, because the government failed to show a historical tradition of disarming people like him.

Bryan Range v. Attorney General United States · filed 2024-12-23(g)(1)

Because the Government has not shown that our Republic has a longstanding history and tradition of depriving people like Range of their firearms, § 922(g)(1) cannot constitutionally strip him of his Second Amendment rights.

An unpreserved Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) does not warrant reversal when the alleged constitutional defect is not clear under current law.

United States v. Caves · filed 2024-12-26(g)(1)

But because the constitutional infirmity alleged by Caves is not clear under current law, we see no basis to disturb his conviction under plain error review.

A facial Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) is foreclosed in the Fifth Circuit by controlling precedent.

United States v. Martinez · filed 2024-12-27(g)(1)

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

Section 922(g)(1) is not subject to an as-applied constitutional challenge based solely on the nonviolent nature of a defendant’s prior felony.

United States v. Winston Cave · filed 2024-12-31(g)(1)

Cave contends that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as-applied to him because his prior Texas felony conviction for unauthorized use of a vehicle was nonviolent. As Cave concedes, this argument is foreclosed by this court’s precedent.

Section 922(g)(3) survives a facial Second Amendment challenge because it can validly restrict firearm possession by at least some drug users and addicts.

Clark v. United States · filed 2025-01-03(g)(3)

Clark’s facial challenge is defeated by controlling precedent. See United States v. Veasley, 98 F.4th 906, 918 (8th Cir. 2024) (finding § 922(g)(3) constitutional because “at least some drug users and addicts fall within a class of people who historically have had limits placed on their right to bear arms”).

Section 922(g)(3) is not facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment after Bruen and Rahimi.

United States v. Deveon Smith · filed 2025-01-03(g)(3)

First, with respect to the facial challenge, this Court has recently rejected the same argument. See United States v. Veasley, 98 F.4th 906, 918 (8th Cir. 2024) (rejecting facial challenge to § 922(g)(3) based on Bruen). Further, the recent Supreme Court opinion in United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680, 690 (2024), ... does not call into question the validity of that holding.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by felons survives facial and as-applied Second Amendment challenges.

United States v. Faust · filed 2025-01-10(g)(1)

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

Section 922(g)(1) remains enforceable against a Second Amendment challenge under binding Eleventh Circuit precedent.

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

Nevertheless, as Tolbert acknowledges in his brief on appeal, his claim that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional is foreclosed by our binding precedent.

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

United States v. Underwood · filed 2025-01-15(g)(1)

As Underwood concedes, his Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) is foreclosed.

Section 922(g)(1) may constitutionally prohibit a felon from possessing a firearm while serving a prior sentence on supervised release.

United States v. Giglio · filed 2025-01-23(g)(1)

Accordingly, we conclude that the government was justified in depriving Giglio of his Second Amendment rights at the time of his arrest, and we uphold the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) as applied to him.

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

United States v. Freeman · filed 2025-01-27(g)(1)

The Government is correct that Freeman’s Bruen-based challenge to § 922(g)(1) is foreclosed.

Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to a felon whose violent conduct and criminal history demonstrate dangerousness.

United States v. Fordham · filed 2025-01-28(g)(1)

We therefore conclude that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to Fordham and affirm the district court’s denial of Fordham’s motion to dismiss.

Section 922(g)(1) withstands a facial Second Amendment challenge and may be applied to a person whose prior convictions show dangerousness.

Kaiser v. United States · filed 2025-01-28(g)(1)

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

Section 922(g)(1) withstands facial and as-applied Second Amendment challenges under binding Fourth Circuit precedent.

United States v. Hill · filed 2025-01-28(g)(1)

Hill’s facial challenge is thus squarely foreclosed by binding circuit precedent. ... Hill’s as-applied challenge thus also fails under binding circuit precedent.

Section 922(g)(1) may constitutionally bar firearm possession by a felon whose criminal history shows he would pose a danger to others if armed.

United States v. Ramoine White · filed 2025-02-04(g)(1)

Accordingly, § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to him, and the District Court did not err by denying White’s motion to dismiss the indictment.

Section 922(g)(3) is subject to as-applied Second Amendment challenges that require an individualized assessment of whether disarming a drug user is historically justified.

United States v. LaVance Cooper · filed 2025-02-05(g)(3)

Without making room for similar individualized determinations, § 922(g)(3) does not “fit[] neatly within th[is] tradition,” id. at 698, because it is not “comparably justified,” Bruen, 597 U.S. at 29.

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

United States v. Walker · filed 2025-02-06(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), holding § 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional under Bruen.

An as-applied Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) requires consideration of the person’s predicate offense, entire criminal history, and later conduct bearing on the danger of firearm misuse.

Pitsilides v. Barr · filed 2025-02-10(g)(1)

Courts adjudicating as-applied challenges to § 922(g)(1) must consider a convict’s entire criminal history and post-conviction conduct indicative of dangerousness, along with his predicate offense and the conduct giving rise to that conviction, to evaluate whether he meets the threshold for continued disarmament.

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

United States v. Greer · filed 2025-02-10(g)(1)

Kelvin Greer 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 Greer’s challenge is foreclosed.

Section 922(g)(1)’s ban on firearm possession by people convicted of a felony withstands a Second Amendment challenge based on felony status.

United States v. Mario Long, Sr. · filed 2025-02-11(g)(1)

Finally, Long challenges the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) as applied to him. Circuit precedent forecloses his argument that the Second Amendment prohibits a ban on firearm possession by all persons previously convicted of a felony.

Section 922(g)(5) withstands a facial Second Amendment challenge under binding Fifth Circuit precedent.

United States v. De La Torre-Barrera · filed 2025-02-19(g)(5)

Circuit precedent forecloses his argument that § 922(g)(5) is facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment following New York State ... Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022).

Section 922(g)(9)’s firearm prohibition withstands a Second Amendment challenge as applied to a person convicted of violent domestic abuse assault.

State of Iowa v. Kieffer · filed 2025-02-21(g)(9)

Thus, the firearm prohibition would remain in place based on the federal prohibition, which survives Kieffer’s Second Amendment challenge for the reasons discussed above.

Section 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional under the Second Amendment because it can be constitutionally applied in at least some circumstances.

United States v. Ketcham · filed 2025-02-24(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 “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.” 123 F.4th 159, 161 (4th Cir. 2024) (internal quotation marks omitted). ... Because the only issue raised in Ketcham’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)(1) withstands a facial Second Amendment challenge and may constitutionally bar firearm possession by a person previously convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

United States v. Carson · filed 2025-02-25(g)(1)

Carson’s facial challenge to § 922(g)(1) is foreclosed following our decision in United States v. Diaz. ... Carson’s as-applied challenge is also foreclosed. ... Carson was previously convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon involving a firearm. As we recently explained in United States v. Isaac, “someone convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon can be constitutionally dispossessed of a firearm.”

A facial Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) is foreclosed by Fifth Circuit precedent.

United States v. Swick · filed 2025-02-26(g)(1)

Wesley Eron Swick asserts that his statute of conviction, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), is facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). ... The Government is correct that Swick’s challenge is foreclosed.

Section 922(g)(1) withstands a Second Amendment challenge by a defendant who possessed ammunition while on parole.

United States v. Stevens · filed 2025-02-28(g)(1)

Because Stevens was on parole when he committed the robbery, his Second Amendment challenge to his § 922(g)(1) conviction fails.

Section 922(g)(1) is not subject to a facial Second Amendment challenge in the Fifth Circuit under controlling precedent.

United States v. Garcia · filed 2025-02-28(g)(1)

Garcia’s facial challenge to § 922(g)(1) is foreclosed by our recent decision in United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 471-72 (5th Cir. 2024).

Section 922(g)(1) withstands a facial Second Amendment challenge under binding Fifth Circuit precedent.

United States v. Bazile · filed 2025-02-28(g)(1)

Jerrell Anthony Bazile 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 Bazile’s challenge is foreclosed. See United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 471-72 (5th Cir. 2024).

Section 922(g)(1) convictions are not susceptible to as-applied Second Amendment challenges in the Fourth Circuit.

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

Turning to the validity of Mayers’s felon-in-possession conviction, this court recently held, post-Bruen, that § 922(g)(1) convictions are not susceptible to as-applied Second Amendment challenges. United States v. Hunt, 123 F.4th 697, 702-08 (4th Cir. 2024). We therefore conclude that Hunt forecloses Mayers’s Bruen argument.

Section 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional under binding Fifth Circuit precedent.

United States v. Mireles · filed 2025-02-19(g)(1)

Regarding Mireles’s facial challenge, a panel of this court recently rejected another preserved Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1), concluding that the statute is facially constitutional. ... As a result, this argument is foreclosed.

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. Borne · 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) withstands a facial Second Amendment challenge under controlling Fifth Circuit precedent.

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

The Government is correct that Hockin’s challenge is foreclosed, see United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458 (5th Cir. 2024), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Feb. 18, 2025) (No. 24-6625), but, because the issues are contested, summary affirmance is not appropriate, see Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). However, Diaz is clearly dispositive, and, therefore, we affirm the district court’s judgment without further briefing.

Section 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional, and an as-applied challenge needs a basis in the defendant’s circumstances.

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

Upon remand from the Supreme Court for further consideration in light of Rahimi, we held in Canada II that “Section 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional.” 123 F.4th at 161. And although the Canada II court did not render a ruling on an as-applied challenge to § 922(g)(1) because the appellant did not raise one, id., Daniels has not proffered arguments tending to suggest or show how the statute is unconstitutional as applied to him, and there is no reasonable basis for an as-applied challenge on this record.

Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to a person who possessed firearms while serving felony probation.

United States v. Moore · filed 2025-03-05(g)(1)

In sum, we affirm Moore’s conviction under § 922(g)(1) because his facial challenge to the statute is foreclosed by Diaz, 116 F.4th at 472, and his as-applied challenge to the statute fails under both Contreras, 125 F.4th at 732, and Giglio, 126 F.4th at 1045–46.

Section 922(g)(1) withstands facial and as-applied Second Amendment challenges under Fourth Circuit precedent.

United States v. Bever · filed 2025-03-05(g)(1)

The holding in Canada forecloses Bever’s facial challenge to § 922(g)(1). ... Thus, Hunt forecloses Bever’s as-applied challenge.

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

United States v. Cisneros · filed 2025-03-06(g)(1)

Cisneros’s facial challenge to § 922(g)(1) is therefore foreclosed by Diaz.

Section 922(g)(1) withstands a facial Second Amendment challenge under binding Fifth Circuit precedent.

United States v. Rollerson · filed 2025-03-11(g)(1)

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

Section 922(g)(1) may constitutionally prohibit firearm possession by a felon whose drug and burglary convictions show he is dangerous.

Reyna v. United States · filed 2025-03-11(g)(1)

Given Petitioner’s previous drug and burglary convictions (and accompanying probation violations) as detailed in the Presentence Report prepared for his sentencing on the challenged §922(g)(1) conviction, he falls squarely in the category of dangerous people who may be constitutionally disarmed.

Section 922(g)(1) may be applied to a person whose prior felony was nonviolent marijuana possession without violating the Second Amendment.

United States v. Robert Peck, Jr. · filed 2025-03-12(g)(1)

Peck also argues that his § 922(g)(1) count should be dismissed because it violated the Second Amendment as applied to him. Specifically, he argues that because his prior conviction for marijuana possession is nonviolent, the Second Amendment prohibits punishing his later possession of a firearm. Peck’s argument is foreclosed by our precedent.

A Second Amendment challenge to applying § 922(g)(1) to a person with a felony conviction does not establish plain error when the statute’s constitutionality remains unsettled.

United States v. Meadows · filed 2025-03-12(g)(1)

There was no plain error here because it is neither “clear” nor “obvious” that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional in light of the recent Supreme Court decisions in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), and United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024).

Section 922(g)(1)’s ban on firearm possession by convicted felons survives a facial Second Amendment challenge under controlling Fifth Circuit precedent.

United States v. Sutherland · filed 2025-03-13(g)(1)

The Government correctly agrees that Sutherland’s challenge to § 922(g)(1) is foreclosed by Diaz, and that his challenge to § 3583(g) is foreclosed by Garner.

Section 922(g)(1) is not subject to a facial Second Amendment challenge based on Bruen under controlling Fifth Circuit precedent.

United States v. Jalomo · filed 2025-03-13(g)(1)

The Government is correct that Jalomo’s Bruen- based challenge to § 922(g)(1) is foreclosed.

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

United States v. Parham · filed 2025-03-13(g)(1)

However, in United States v. Canada, 123 F.4th 159 (4th Cir. 2024), we reaffirmed ... our holding that § 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional and determined that this conclusion is fully consistent with Rahimi. Id. at 160-62. Parham’s facial challenge is thus squarely foreclosed by binding circuit precedent.

Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to a person whose prior drug trafficking and firearm convictions indicate a potential danger to society.

LEWIS v. United States · filed 2025-03-14(g)(1)

The government has carried its burden of proving that §922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to him.

Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to a person whose domestic-violence conviction and violent threats show that he is dangerous.

United States v. Watson · filed 2025-03-17(g)(1)

Watson’s other convictions, which include burglary and operating a vehicle while intoxicated, provide other potential evidence of dangerousness, but we need not explore their underlying facts, as the facts already discussed sufficiently show that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to Watson.

Section 922(g)(1) may constitutionally prohibit firearm possession by a person with a felony vehicle theft conviction.

United States v. Judd · filed 2025-03-24(g)(1)

Our decision in Diaz resolves Judd’s argument that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to a felon like him with a vehicle theft conviction.

Section 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional, and convictions under it are not susceptible to as-applied Second Amendment challenges in the Fourth Circuit.

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

Canada therefore forecloses Robinson’s facial challenge to § 922(g)(1). To the extent that Robinson also asserts that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to him, we recently held, post-Bruen, that § 922(g)(1) convictions are not susceptible to as-applied Second Amendment challenges. United States v. Hunt, 123 F.4th 697, 702-08 (4th Cir. 2024). We therefore conclude that Hunt forecloses Robinson’s as-applied challenge.

Section 922(g)(1) may constitutionally bar firearm possession by a person convicted of aggravated battery causing great bodily injury, even when that offense did not involve a firearm.

United States v. Schnur · filed 2025-03-26(g)(1)

Accordingly, we hold that a ban on Schnur’s ability to possess a firearm pursuant to § 922(g)(1) passes constitutional muster.

Section 922(g)(1)'s prohibition on firearm possession by felons remains valid under the Second Amendment.

United States v. Redfoot · filed 2025-03-31(g)(1)

This argument is now foreclosed by Tenth Circuit precedent, as we recently reaffirmed that § 922(g)(1) remains good law.

Section 922(g)(1) withstands an as-applied Second Amendment challenge when the defendant unlawfully possessed the firearm while on probation.

United States v. Grimes · filed 2025-03-31(g)(1)

Any as-applied challenge to § 922(g)(1) also fails because Grimes unlawfully possessed the firearm while on probation.

Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to a felon whose prior convictions and misuse of firearms show a clear threat to others.

United States v. Davis · filed 2025-03-31(g)(1)

Because the district court—supported by Davis’s prior convictions—determined that Davis’s misuse of firearms presents a clear threat to others, § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to him.

Section 922(g)(1) may be applied to a felon who possesses a firearm while still serving a criminal sentence without violating the Second Amendment.

United States v. Deamonte Law · filed 2025-04-02(g)(1)

Thus, the application of § 922(g)(1) to Law’s possession of a firearm in September 2020 does not offend the Second Amendment.

Section 922(g)(1) may constitutionally prohibit firearm possession by a person still serving felony probation.

United States v. Zinnerman · filed 2025-04-02(g)(1)

We therefore hold that Zinnerman’s felony probation status at the time of his § 922(g)(1) offense forecloses his as-applied challenge under Contreras and Giglio.

A facial Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(5) is foreclosed by Fifth Circuit precedent.

United States v. D'luna-Mendez · filed 2025-04-02(g)(5)

With respect to the denial of the motion to dismiss, D’luna-Mendez renews his argument that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5) is facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). However, he correctly concedes that this argument is foreclosed.

Section 922(g)(1)’s firearm prohibition withstands the facial and as-applied Second Amendment challenges foreclosed by Fifth Circuit precedent.

United States v. Brito · filed 2025-04-02(g)(1)

For the first time on appeal, he argues that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment on its face and as applied to him under the test set forth in New York State Rifle & Pistol ... Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). ... Brito’s arguments are indeed foreclosed.

Section 922(g)(1) may constitutionally disarm a person whose criminal history shows that he is dangerous.

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

And we hold that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to Henson.

Section 922(g)(1) may be applied to a felon without plain error under binding Tenth Circuit precedent rejecting a Second Amendment challenge.

United States v. Elwell · filed 2025-04-11(g)(1)

In United States v. McCane, 573 F.3d 1037, 1047 (10th Cir. 2009), this court determined that § 922(g)(1) does not violate the Second Amendment. We very recently concluded that McCane remains binding. See Vincent v. Bondi, 127 F.4th 1263, 1265-66 (10th Cir. 2025). In light of Vincent, we cannot conclude that the district court plainly erred by applying § 922(g)(1).

Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to a person with two murder convictions who remains on parole under a condition barring firearm possession.

United States v. Williams · filed 2025-04-11(g)(1)

We reverse the district court’s decision on the as-applied challenge, and hold that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to Williams.

Section 922(g)(1) withstands a facial Second Amendment challenge under binding Tenth Circuit precedent.

United States v. Graves · filed 2025-04-14(g)(1)

Our precedent forecloses this argument. We rejected a constitutional challenge to § 922(g)(1) in United States v. McCane, 573 F.3d 1037 (10th Cir. 2009).

Section 922(g)(1) may constitutionally prohibit firearm possession by a felon who is still completing a sentence on state parole.

United States v. Eddings · filed 2025-04-14(g)(1)

Eddings was on parole at the time of his indictment; he was therefore still completing his sentence, and § 922(g)(1) was constitutional as applied to him.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by convicted felons withstands an as-applied Second Amendment challenge under binding Fourth Circuit precedent.

United States v. Newsome · filed 2025-04-14(g)(1)

Thus, we agree that Hunt forecloses Newsome’s as-applied challenge to his § 922(g)(1) conviction.

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. Kinloch · filed 2025-04-14(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 Kinloch’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)(1) is facially constitutional and may be applied to a felon whose record demonstrates dangerousness.

United States v. Raphael Jermaine Williams, Jr. · filed 2025-04-17(g)(1)

In sum, we hold that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional both facially and as applied to Williams.

Section 922(g)(1) withstands a facial Second Amendment challenge under Bruen.

Daniels v. United States · filed 2025-04-18(g)(1)

The Court finds persuasive the rationale of the majority of district courts in the Seventh Circuit and, for the reasons stated in its prior opinions, concludes yet again that § 922(g)(1) is not facially unconstitutional.

Section 922(g)(3) survives a facial Second Amendment challenge because it constitutionally restricts firearm possession by at least some unlawful drug users.

United States v. Cobbs · filed 2025-04-25(g)(3)

Cobbs’s “facial challenge is defeated by controlling precedent.”

Section 922(g)(1) withstands a facial Second Amendment challenge under Bruen.

United States v. Gipson · filed 2025-04-28(g)(1)

Gipson’s facial challenge to Section 922(g)(1) under Bruen is foreclosed by 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 unpreserved Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) by a defendant with a prior drug felony does not establish plain error under Fifth Circuit precedent.

United States v. Hernandez · filed 2025-04-29(g)(1)

Because Hernandez also has a prior drug felony conviction, Cisneros controls and forecloses this as-applied challenge.

Section 922(g)(1) withstands a facial Second Amendment challenge, and applying it to a person with prior drug-trafficking felonies is not clearly or obviously unconstitutional on plain-error review.

United States v. Howard · filed 2025-04-29(g)(1)

His facial Second Amendment challenge is also foreclosed. See United States v. Contreras, 125 F.4th 725, 729 (5th Cir. 2025). His unpreserved as- applied challenge fails on plain error review because he has not shown that applying § 922(g)(1) based on his prior drug-trafficking felonies amounts to clear or obvious error.

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. Garcia · filed 2025-04-30(g)(1)

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

Section 922(g)(1) withstands an as-applied Second Amendment challenge based on a prior Texas robbery conviction.

United States v. Arredondo · filed 2025-04-30(g)(1)

Whatever merit Arredondo’s as-applied challenge might have had, it too is now foreclosed by our precedent, as the Government asserts.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by felons withstands facial and as-applied Second Amendment challenges in the Eighth Circuit.

United States v. Haynes · filed 2025-05-01(g)(1)

On appeal, he argues that the felon-in- ... possession statute violates the Second Amendment, both facially and as applied to him. Circuit precedent forecloses both arguments, so we affirm.

A first-time Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) fails on plain-error review when existing law does not clearly establish that the firearm ban is unconstitutional as applied or facially.

United States v. Tyler Goodnight · filed 2025-05-02(g)(1)

Goodnight’s case is not the kind of Second Amendment challenge that is plain under our existing caselaw. It is hardly obvious that the Second Amendment bars permanently disarming someone with recent firearms and drug-dealing convictions like Goodnight’s. So his as-applied challenge fails. For the same reason, Goodnight’s facial challenge must necessarily fail too. He cannot establish that it is plain under existing caselaw that there is “no set of circumstances” under which § 922(g)(1) would be valid.

Section 922(g)(1) withstands an as-applied Second Amendment challenge by a person with prior theft and burglary felony convictions.

United States v. Thompson · filed 2025-05-02(g)(1)

David Thompson argues that his statute of conviction, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), violates the Second Amendment on its face and as applied to him in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). ... His as-applied challenge is also foreclosed by Diaz, as he has prior felony convictions for theft and burglary, a “theft- related” offense.

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. Edwards · filed 2025-05-05(g)(1)

Edwards’s facial challenge to § 922(g)(1) is foreclosed by 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).

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

United States v. Guzman · filed 2025-05-06(g)(1)

This Court has repeatedly held that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional, see United States v. Smith, No. 24-cr-50023, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82045 (N.D. IIL. Apr. 30, 2025) (collecting cases), and will continue to do so until and unless the Seventh Circuit says otherwise.

Section 922(g)(1) remains enforceable against a Second Amendment challenge based on Bruen under Fourth Circuit precedent.

United States v. McNeil · filed 2025-05-06(g)(1)

McNeil has also filed a Fed. R. App. P. 28(j) notice of supplemental authorities suggesting that his § 922(g)(1) conviction is unsound following the Supreme Court’s decision in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 17 (2022) (holding that firearm regulation is valid under Second Amendment only if it is “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation”). In light of our precedent regarding § 922(g)(1), we conclude that McNeil’s reliance on Bruen is misplaced.

An as-applied Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) does not establish plain error merely by invoking Range when the defendant’s criminal record is substantially different.

United States v. Williams · filed 2025-05-08(g)(1)

Williams contends that we must follow Range v. Attorney General, 124 F.4th 218 (3d Cir. 2024) and find that § 922(g) is unconstitutional as applied to him. ... At the very least, this factual mismatch to Range means the District Court did not commit plain error in rejecting Williams’ Second Amendment challenge.

Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to a felon whose criminal history shows he is dangerous.

United States v. Poe · filed 2025-05-08(g)(1)

But, because § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to him and a remand isn’t required, we affirm.

Section 922(g)(9) withstands a facial Second Amendment challenge because at least some of its applications are constitutional.

United States v. Bernard · filed 2025-05-09(g)(9)

Because Bernard raises only a facial challenge to § 922(g)(9), we need not resolve whether Congress’s categorical ban on possession by persons convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence offenses is likewise constitutional. It is sufficient here to conclude that the statute is constitutional in at least some of its applications and thus not unconstitutional on its face.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by felons withstands facial and as-applied Second Amendment challenges under binding Tenth Circuit precedent, including a challenge based on a nonviolent felony conviction.

United States v. Vickers · filed 2025-05-09(g)(1)

Given Vincent’s holding that McCane remains binding, our precedent forecloses Mr. Vickers’s facial and as-applied challenges to § 922(g)(1).

An as-applied Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) fails plain-error review when no binding precedent clearly bars disarming a felon with the defendant’s record of violence.

United States v. Black · filed 2025-05-09(g)(1)

Black has, however, identified no precedent clearly establishing that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment as applied to him.

An as-applied Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) based on Texas controlled-substance possession convictions fails plain-error review when no binding precedent makes the claimed error clear or obvious.

United States v. Tovar · filed 2025-05-12(g)(1)

Because there is no binding precedent addressing whether applying § 922(g)(1) based on Texas convictions for possession of controlled substances is consistent with this nation’s historical traditions and because it is not clear that Bruen or Diaz dictates such a result, Tovar is unable to demonstrate an error that is clear or obvious.

Section 922(g)(1)’s ban on firearm possession after a felony conviction withstands facial and as-applied Second Amendment challenges under Fifth Circuit precedent.

United States v. Guiden · filed 2025-05-12(g)(1)

He renews his arguments that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment on its face and as applied to him in light of the test set forth in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ... 1 (2022). ... The Government is correct that Guiden’s arguments are foreclosed.

Section 922(g)(1) may constitutionally disarm a felon whose criminal history demonstrates dangerousness.

Williams v. United States · filed 2025-05-12(g)(1)

Second, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)’s felon-in-possession ban is constitutional as applied to Petitioner.

Section 922(g)(9) is facially constitutional under the Second Amendment because at least some applications validly disarm people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence.

United States v. Nutter · filed 2025-05-14(g)(9)

For the reasons set forth above, we hold that § 922(g)(9) survives Nutter’s facial challenge and is constitutional.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by convicted felons withstands this as-applied Second Amendment challenge under binding Fourth Circuit precedent.

United States v. Burns · filed 2025-05-27(g)(1)

Burns argues that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to him because there was no historical tradition at the time of the enactment of the Second Amendment of disarming felons convicted of drug offenses. However, binding circuit precedent squarely forecloses Burns’s argument.

Section 922(g)(1) may be applied to a defendant with prior felonies when that application is not clearly or obviously unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

United States v. Alvarez · filed 2025-06-03(g)(1)

His unpreserved as-applied challenge fails on plain error review because he has not shown that applying § 922(g)(1) based on his prior felonies amounts to clear or obvious error.

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

United States v. Ross · filed 2025-06-03(g)(1)

Ross is correct that his argument is foreclosed.

Section 922(g)(1) may constitutionally disarm a person whose aggravated assault convictions arose from a high-speed crash that seriously injured others.

United States v. Betancourt · filed 2025-06-04(g)(1)

In short, the Second Amendment does not prohibit applying § 922(g)(1) to him here.

Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to a felon still serving a criminal sentence, including probation.

United States v. Melendrez-Machado · filed 2025-06-05(g)(1)

Because Melendrez-Machado was still serving a criminal sentence for his state-law felony theft conviction—probation—when he unlawfully possessed a firearm, § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to him.

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

United States v. Nevarez · filed 2025-06-05(g)(1)

Duarte upheld the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) as applied to non-violent ... felons. ... Duarte directly forecloses Nevarez’s arguments. ... Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying Nevarez’s Motion to Dismiss the Indictment.

Section 922(g)(1)’s ban on firearm possession by felons may be applied to a person convicted of burglary of a habitation without violating the Second Amendment.

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

Because one of Lopez’s predicate convictions is burglary of a habitation, Diaz likewise forecloses his as-applied challenge.

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

United States v. Ketzner · filed 2025-06-09(g)(1)

But we cannot ignore our recent decision to reaffirm the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1).

Section 922(g)(1) does not violate the Second Amendment as applied to a defendant based on his non-violent felony conviction.

United States v. Foster D. Johnson · filed 2025-06-09(g)(1)

Finally, Johnson argues that § 922(g)(1), as applied to him based on his non-violent felony conviction, violates the Second Amendment. Johnson’s argument, however, is foreclosed by our precedent.

Section 922(g)(5) may be applied to a person unlawfully present in the United States because the Second Amendment does not protect that person's firearm possession.

United States v. Benito · filed 2025-06-09(g)(5)

Based on that caselaw, because Muñoz Benito is present in the United States unlawfully, we must hold that he is excluded from “the people” to whom the Second Amendment’s protections extend and therefore has no basis for an as-applied challenge to § 922(g)(5).

Section 922(o) restricts machineguns that can be carried and those that cannot, so it survives a facial Second Amendment challenge.

DeWilde v. Unites States Attorney General · filed 2025-06-10(o)

But § 922(o) restricts ownership of both bearable weapons, like the M16 rifle Mr. DeWilde sought to make, and non-bearable weapons, such as airplane-mounted automatic cannons. ... Because such a prohibition extends beyond the right the Second Amendment protects, Mr. DeWilde could not “establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid,” Salerno, 481 U.S. at 745, so the district court correctly dismissed his facial constitutional challenge.

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. Gilbert · filed 2025-06-16(g)(1)

As we explained in Dubois, “[w]e require clearer instruction from the Supreme Court before we may recon- sider the constitutionality of [S]ection 922(g)(1).” Dubois, 2025 WL 1553843, at *5. Accordingly, we affirm Gilbert’s conviction.

Section 922(g)(1) can constitutionally bar a person with felony drug convictions from possessing firearms permanently.

United States v. Rider · filed 2025-06-16(g)(1)

Therefore, § 922(g) is constitutional as applied to Rider.

Section 922(q)(2)(A) may constitutionally prohibit firearm possession by a visibly threatening person about 40 feet from a school.

United States v. Allam · filed 2025-06-16(q)(2)(A)

The “why and how” of 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A), as applied to Allam, are “consistent with the principles that underpin our regulatory tradition.”

Section 922(g)(1) withstands a facial Second Amendment challenge under Bruen in the Fifth Circuit.

United States v. Leopaul · filed 2025-06-17(g)(1)

He argues that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional on its face in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). ... As the Government asserts and as Leopaul concedes, the sole issue raised on appeal is foreclosed by Diaz.

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

United States v. Alston · filed 2025-06-18(g)(1)

Alston’s challenge to § 922(g)(1) is likewise unavailing. ... Accordingly, Alston’s Second Amendment challenge fails under Duarte.

Section 922(g)(1)’s ban on firearm possession by felons withstands an as-applied Second Amendment challenge without an individualized determination.

United States v. Pierre · filed 2025-06-20(g)(1)

Rozier forecloses Pierre’s Second Amendment challenge because Pierre, “by virtue of his felony conviction, falls within such a class” of people permissibly restricted from possessing firearms.

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

United States v. Bryan Esters · filed 2025-06-20(g)(1)

In our recent decision in United States v. Hunt, 123 F.4th 697 (4th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, No. 24-6818, 2025 WL 1549804 (U.S. June 2, 2025), we held that “neither Bruen nor Rahimi abrogates this Court’s precedent foreclosing as-applied challenges to Section 922(g)(1)” and, further, that “Section 922(g)(1) would pass constitutional muster ... even if we were unconstrained by circuit precedent.” Id. at 702. Esters’s as-applied challenge thus fails under binding circuit precedent.

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

United States v. Kelvontae Brown · filed 2025-06-23(g)(1)

Because Rozier remains binding precedent, it continues to foreclose Brown’s Second Amendment challenge to his conviction under § 922(g)(1).

Section 922(g)(1) withstands a facial Second Amendment challenge under Bruen in the Fifth Circuit.

United States v. Copeland · filed 2025-06-23(g)(1)

Desmond Copeland appeals following his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), arguing that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional on its face in light of the test set forth in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). ... As the Government asserts, the sole issue raised on appeal is foreclosed by 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).

Section 922(g)(1) withstands facial and as-applied Second Amendment challenges by people convicted of felonies, including nonviolent offenses.

United States v. Lee · filed 2025-06-24(g)(1)

Given Vincent’s holding that McCane remains binding, our precedent forecloses Mr. Lee’s facial and as-applied challenges to § 922(g)(1).

An unpreserved Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) does not establish plain error without controlling precedent holding the provision unconstitutional.

United States v. Pittman · filed 2025-06-25(g)(1)

Pittman has not pointed to any decision from the Supreme Court or this Court holding that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, either facially or as applied to a particular defendant.

A conviction under § 922(g)(1) is not plainly erroneous under the Second Amendment when the challenge rests on an asserted lack of historical tradition of disarming felons.

United States v. Dennis · filed 2025-06-25(g)(1)

Indeed, we rejected the precise argument that Dennis makes here – that there is no historical tradition of disarming felons – in Zherka, which was another as-applied challenge to section 922(g)(1). ... As a result, we cannot say that Dennis’s conviction for violating section 922(g)(1) was erroneous, let alone plainly erroneous.

Section 922(g)(1) does not clearly or obviously violate the Second Amendment as applied to a person with a prior controlled-substance possession conviction when the challenge requires extending existing precedent.

United States v. Arredondo · filed 2025-06-25(g)(1)

Because Arredondo’s as-applied argument would, at the least, require extending precedent, he fails to show that § 922(g)(1) clearly or obviously violates the Second Amendment as applied to him.

Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to a person possessing a firearm while on state probation for a felony.

United States v. Isaiah Wise · filed 2025-06-26(g)(1)

Wise was on state probation at the time of his indictment and therefore § 922(g)(1) was constitutional as applied to him.

Section 922(g)(1)'s prohibition on firearm possession by felons is constitutional on its face and as applied to Ware.

United States v. Dimaryn Ware · filed 2025-06-30(g)(1)

Section 922(g)(1) is not unconstitutional on its face or as applied to him.

Section 922(g)(1) permits lifelong disarmament of people convicted of drug-trafficking felonies without an individualized assessment of dangerousness.

United States v. Kimble · filed 2025-06-30(g)(1)

Kimble’s conviction accords with the Second Amendment because Congress can categorially disarm individuals convicted of violent felonies like drug trafficking. That conclusion does not depend on an individualized assessment that Kimble is dangerous.

Section 922(g)(1) withstands an as-applied Second Amendment challenge under Bruen without examining the particular felony that establishes a defendant’s status.

United States v. Leonadus Chaney, III · filed 2025-06-30(g)(1)

This court further held that § 922(g)(1) passes constitutional muster under Bruen without reference to the specific conviction establishing the defendant’s felon status. Id. at 704-08. Therefore, Chaney’s argument is foreclosed by Hunt.

Section 922(g)(1)’s ban on firearm possession by felons withstands an as-applied Second Amendment challenge based on the circumstances of possession.

United States v. Brown · filed 2025-07-01(g)(1)

And we reject Brown’s argument that Dubois and Rozier do not bar as-applied challenges to the constitutionality of section 922(g)(1).

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by convicted felons remains valid against Second Amendment challenges under binding Eleventh Circuit precedent.

United States v. Parker · filed 2025-07-01(g)(1)

That means Parker’s Second Amendment challenge to section 922(g)(1) fails.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by convicted felons is constitutional even as applied to nonviolent felons.

United States v. Williams · filed 2025-07-02(g)(1)

We do not address the terms of Williams’s plea agreement because his challenge to Section 922(g)(1) fails regardless of the appeal waiver. ... We also clarified that Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional even as applied to “nonviolent” felons. ... Accordingly, we affirm Williams’s conviction for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

Section 922(g)(1) does not plainly violate the Second Amendment, facially or as applied, under binding Eleventh Circuit precedent.

United States v. Williams · filed 2025-07-02(g)(1)

Williams also fails to show that §922(g)(1) plainly violates the Second Amendment, facially or as applied to him.

Section 922(g)(5)’s prohibition on firearm possession by unlawfully present aliens does not violate the Second Amendment, facially or as applied.

United States v. Drummond · filed 2025-07-02(g)(5)

As to Drummond’s second argument, this Court has held that section 922(g)(5) does not violate the Second Amendment. Jimenez-Shilon, 34 F.4th at 1050. We likewise acknowledged in Jimenez-Shilon that, “consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and history,” illegal immigrants “do not enjoy the right to keep and bear arms”—foreclosing Drummond’s as-applied 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 is foreclosed.

United States v. Moore · filed 2025-07-03(g)(1)

Moore’s contention that § 922(g)(1) is facially unconstitutional is foreclosed. ... So too is his as- applied challenge to § 922(g)(1) because he was serving a term of supervised release at the time he committed the instant offense.