18 U.S.C. § 922

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by convicted felons is facially constitutional and can be applied to a person whose prior conduct establishes that he is dangerous.

United States v. Johnson · filed 2025-07-08(g)(1)

We have held that § 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional. ... Johnson’s facial challenge therefore fails. ... In any event, Johnson’s prior convictions establish that he is dangerous. He threatened to shoot four men after a confrontation, and in a separate incident he fired two shots at an unknown individual after an argument. Johnson’s as-applied challenge, therefore, also fails.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by felons is not plainly unconstitutional as applied to a person with violent felony convictions.

United States v. Acosta · filed 2025-07-08(g)(1)

Acosta first argues that in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), section 922(g)(1) should be held unconstitutional as applied to his conduct. ... For all these reasons, we cannot say that the district court erred, let alone plainly erred, in failing to sua sponte vacate Acosta’s conviction.

Section 922(g)(1) may be enforced against a person convicted of burglary of a habitation despite an as-applied Second Amendment challenge.

United States v. Hemphill · filed 2025-07-09(g)(1)

Because one of Hemphill’s ... predicate convictions here is burglary of a habitation, his as-applied challenge is foreclosed.

Section 922(g)(3)’s prohibition on firearm possession by unlawful drug users survives a facial Second Amendment challenge under Eighth Circuit precedent.

United States v. Deng · filed 2025-07-09(g)(3)

However, since Rahimi, this court has rejected facial challenges to section 922(g)(3). See, e.g., United States v. Cooper, 127 F.4th 1092, 1094 n.1 (8th Cir. 2025). This court affirms the denial of Deng’s motion for a judgment of acquittal.

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

United States v. Thirkield · filed 2025-07-10(g)(1)

Because Dubois and Rozier remain binding, we must conclude section 922(g)(1) does not facially violate the Second Amendment.

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

United States v. Pettway · filed 2025-07-10(g)(1)

Our binding precedent thus dictates that felons may be categorically disqualified from exercising their Second Amendment rights and forecloses Pettway’s Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1).

Section 922(g)(1) constitutionally applies to a person convicted of a felony who is on probation.

United States v. Lowry · filed 2025-07-11(g)(1)

But his Second Amendment challenge fails because “§ 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to convicts on . . . probation.” United States v. Quailes, 126 F.4th 215, 224 (3d Cir. 2025).

Section 922(g)(9) is facially constitutional, and the firearm possession bans in §§ 922(g)(1) and (g)(9) may be applied to people whose qualifying crimes show they are dangerous.

United States v. Da Shawn Lee Martin · filed 2025-07-11(g)(1), (g)(9)

We therefore reject his facial challenge to § 922(g)(9). ... Martin’s as applied challenges to §§ 922(g)(1) and 922(g)(9) similarly fail.

Section 922(g)(1) may constitutionally prohibit firearm possession by a felon whose conduct shows a pattern of dangerousness.

United States v. Palm · filed 2025-07-14(g)(1)

Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to Palm in this case.

Section 922(g)(1) remains enforceable against a person with Texas aggravated robbery convictions despite an as-applied Second Amendment challenge.

United States v. Miranda · filed 2025-07-14(g)(1)

We conclude that Miranda’s as-applied challenge to § 922(g)(1) is foreclosed.

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

United States v. Goody · filed 2025-07-14(g)(1)

First, Goody argues the felon-in-possession ban is facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. That fails: Our court has already found § 922(g)(1) facially constitutional.

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

United States v. Robinson · filed 2025-07-16(g)(1)

He argues that his convictions must be vacated under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), because the statutes ... of conviction violate his rights under the Second Amendment facially, but correctly concedes that this claim is foreclosed.

Section 922(g)(1) withstands an as-applied Second Amendment challenge when the defendant’s predicate felony involves violence.

United States v. Kendall · filed 2025-07-17(g)(1)

Kendall’s ... relevant offenses are injury to the elderly and unlawful possession of a firearm. Kendall was convicted of the former after he assaulted his 85-year-old mother and caused her bodily injury. ... “In summary, our caselaw establishes that if a defendant’s predicate felony involves . . . violence, his as-applied challenge to § 922(g)(1) will fail.”

Section 922(g)(1) may constitutionally disarm a felon while the person is serving a sentence on supervised release.

United States v. Barrow · filed 2025-07-17(g)(1)

We express no opinion today on whether Barrow’s predicate felonies justify permanent disarmament for purposes of § 922(g)(1). Our holding is simply that, at the time of his felon-in-possession arrest, the Government could constitutionally disarm Barrow based on his supervised release status for prior felony convictions.

Section 922(g)(3) withstands a facial Second Amendment challenge under binding Eighth Circuit precedent.

United States v. Wuchter · filed 2025-07-21(g)(3)

On appeal, Wuchter argues that § 922(g)(3) is unconstitutional on its face, and that the district court should have dismissed the indictment. Wuchter’s argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent.

Section 922(g)(3) cannot categorically disarm marijuana users based solely on marijuana use without evidence that they pose an unacceptable danger if armed.

United States v. Aldo Perez, Jr. · filed 2025-07-22(g)(3)

And the government here did not provide enough evidence to show that marijuana use alone could reasonably be seen to make any user “an unacceptable risk of dangerousness” to others by merely possessing a firearm.

Section 922(g)(1) may constitutionally bar a felon from possessing a firearm when he is dangerous and fails to prove otherwise.

United States v. White · filed 2025-07-23(g)(1)

Thus, the district court correctly determined that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to him.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by felons withstands a Second Amendment challenge under the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Vincent.

United States v. Mitchell · filed 2025-07-23(g)(1)

Mr. Mitchell appeals his conviction, contending the district court should have dismissed the indictment on the ground that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment. ... In light of Vincent and Mr. Mitchell’s concession, we agree that summary affirmance is appropriate.

Section 922(g)(1)’s ban on felon possession of ammunition withstands an as-applied Second Amendment challenge foreclosed by Eighth Circuit precedent.

United States v. Harris-Franklin · filed 2025-07-24(g)(1)

Second, circuit precedent forecloses Harris-Franklin’s argument that 18 ... U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to him under the Second Amendment.

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

United States v. Meeks · filed 2025-07-24(g)(1)

Though the government makes additional arguments regarding Meeks’s dangerousness, the above is sufficient to reject Meeks’s claim. We hold that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to Meeks and affirm the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment.

Section 922(g)(1) may be applied to a felon whose criminal record shows he is dangerous.

United States v. Julius Curtis Robinson, Jr. · filed 2025-07-28(g)(1)

At the very least, Robinson may not invoke the Second Amendment as a defense against § 922(g)(1) during his term of probation, see Goins, 118 F.4th at 803–04, as happened here. Because he is dangerous, the government may disarm him.

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

Richards v. United States of America (INMATE 1) · filed 2025-07-29(g)(1)

Richards’ claim that his § 922(g) conviction is unconstitutional under Bruen and the Second Amendment is therefore foreclosed by binding Eleventh Circuit precedent.

Section 922(g)(4)’s ban on firearm possession after involuntary commitment is facially constitutional because some applications comply with the Second Amendment.

United States v. Gould · filed 2025-07-29(g)(4)

Disarmament under § 922(g)(4) is facially constitutional because situations exist where it may be applied consistent with the Second Amendment.

Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional under the Second Amendment as applied to a person on state parole who possesses a firearm.

United States v. Mackall · filed 2025-07-31(g)(1)

Because Mackall was on state parole when he unlawfully possessed the firearm for which he was federally charged, § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to him.

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

United States v. Day · filed 2025-07-31(g)(1)

Two of our recent decisions foreclose Day’s challenges on appeal. In United States v. Canada, we considered and rejected a constitutional challenge to § 922(g)(1), 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 and emphasis omitted). Likewise, in United States v. Hunt, we held that neither Bruen nor United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024), “abrogates this Court’s precedent foreclosing as-applied challenges to Section 922(g)(1) and those decisions thus remain binding.” 123 F.4th 697, 702 (4th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, No. 24-6818, 2025 WL 1549804 (U.S. Jun. 2, 2025).

Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional on its face and as applied to people whose underlying felony conviction is nonviolent.

United States v. Martin · filed 2025-08-01(g)(1)

Assuming that Martin preserved this argument, it is foreclosed by our recent decision in Zherka v. Bondi, 140 F.4th 68 (2d Cir. 2025), which held that Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional both facially and as applied to those whose underlying felony conviction is nonviolent.

Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to a person whose predicate felony convictions are nearly twenty-five years old.

United States v. Peshlakai · filed 2025-08-01(g)(1)

This argument is foreclosed by clear circuit precedent. See Vincent v. Bondi, 127 F.4th 1263, 1266 (10th Cir. 2025) (holding § 922(g)(1) is constitutional “for all individuals convicted of felonies”).

An as-applied Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) does not establish plain error when no binding precedent makes the challenged application clearly unconstitutional.

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

Under prong two there was no clear or obvious error, so the district court did not plainly err when upholding Morgan’s conviction. ... Morgan cites no published authority, nor have we found any, holding Section 922(g)(1) unconstitutional in light of Bruen as applied to the possession of firearms by felons whose prior convictions are for engaging in a monetary transaction with criminally derived property.

Section 922(g)(1) may be applied to a person on supervised release for a felony illegal-reentry conviction without violating the Second Amendment.

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

Because Alba-Hernandez was on supervised release for illegal reentry, his as-applied Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) fails under United States v. Kimble, 142 F.4th 308, 312 (5th Cir. 2025).

Section 922(g)(1)'s firearm possession ban is constitutional as applied to a person whose qualifying felony involved a drive-by shooting.

United States v. Morgan · filed 2025-08-06(g)(1)

Accordingly, we need not resolve whether a historical analogue exists specifically for criminal negligence, because the “going armed” laws are “relevantly similar” to § 922(g)(1) as applied to Morgan.

Section 922(g)(1) may constitutionally prohibit firearm possession by someone previously convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

United States v. Robinson · filed 2025-08-07(g)(1)

From the foregoing caselaw, we have little trouble concluding that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to Robinson, whose predicate felony was “aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.”

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

United States v. Brown · filed 2025-08-07(g)(1)

Brown’s argument that § 922(g)(1) is unconsti- tutional is therefore foreclosed by our binding decisions in Dubois and Rozier.

Section 922(g)(1)’s felon-in-possession prohibition withstands Bruen-based Second Amendment challenges under Fourth Circuit precedent.

United States v. Charod Terry · filed 2025-08-07(g)(1)

Terry asserts that the district court failed to address the nonfrivolous mitigation arguments he presented at sentencing, thereby rendering his sentence procedurally unreasonable, and that his § 922 conviction is unconstitutional under N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). Finding no error, we affirm. First, Terry’s arguments based on Bruen are foreclosed by this court’s precedent.

An as-applied Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) may consider a defendant’s other felony convictions, even when one was not the stated predicate for the firearm conviction.

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

This court may consider Alaniz’s burglary conviction. His as-applied challenge is therefore foreclosed by circuit precedent.

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

United States v. Williams · filed 2025-08-11(g)(1)

We thus conclude that § 922(g) is constitutional as applied to Williams.

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

United States v. Garlick · filed 2025-08-12(g)(1)

Garlick’s facial constitutional challenge to Section 922(g)(1) is squarely foreclosed by our precedents. ... Garlick’s challenge therefore fails.

Section 922(g)(1) applies to people with prior felony convictions, including convictions for manslaughter, assault, and drug sale, despite an as-applied Second Amendment challenge.

United States v. Davila · filed 2025-08-12(g)(1)

Accordingly, we reject Davila’s arguments that Section 922(g)(1) should not apply to his particular prior felony convictions.

A Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) as applied to a person with a felony drug-possession conviction fails plain-error review when no existing precedent resolves that application.

United States v. Salone · filed 2025-08-12(g)(1)

Because there is no existing precedent addressing whether § 922(g)(1)’s application based on a predicate conviction for drug ... possession is consistent with the Second Amendment, Salone cannot establish plain error.

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

United States v. Martinez · filed 2025-08-13(g)(1)

Given binding authority from the Supreme Court and this court rejecting similar challenges, he has also failed to show that it was plainly erroneous to convict him under § 922(g)(1).

Section 922(g)(1) remains facially constitutional under the Second Amendment after Bruen.

United States v. Bernard Breeland, Jr. · filed 2025-08-14(g)(1)

However, a panel of this Court has held that Section 922(g)(1) remains facially constitutional post-Bruen. ... Breeland’s facial challenge to Section 922(g) therefore fails.

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

United States v. Mathis · filed 2025-08-15(g)(1)

The only question we can address on the merits is a facial Second Amendment challenge to the felon-in-possession statute. ... The problem for Mathis is that we have already upheld the statute.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by felons does not distinguish among types of felony for Second Amendment purposes.

United States v. Simmons · filed 2025-08-15(g)(1)

While his appeal was pending, we clarified in Vincent v. Bondi that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional under the Second Amendment “without drawing constitutional distinctions based on the type of felony involved.” 127 F.4th 1263, 1266 (10th Cir. 2025) (citations omitted). Simmons therefore cannot demonstrate plain error as to his preserved argument.

Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to a person with prior non-violent felony convictions under binding Eleventh Circuit precedent.

United States v. Colston · filed 2025-08-12(g)(1)

Regardless of the standard of review, Colston’s challenge fails. He argues that that § 922(g)(1), as applied to him based on his prior non-violent felony convictions, violates the Second Amend- ment. But we rejected the same challenge in United States v. Dubois, 139 F.4th 887 (11th Cir. 2025). There, we reaffirmed that “prohibi- tions on the possession of firearms by felons” are “presumptively lawful” and upheld § 922(g)(1) as constitutional.

A person who possesses a firearm while serving federal supervised release cannot prevail on a facial or as-applied Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) under controlling Third Circuit precedent.

United States v. Ross · filed 2025-08-19(g)(1)

Second, because Ross possessed a firearm while serving a term of federal supervised release, his facial and as-applied challenge to § 922(g)(1) is foreclosed by United States v. Moore, 111 F.4th 266, 273 & n.5 (3d Cir. 2024), and United States v. Quailes, 126 F.4th 215, 221 (3d Cir. 2025).

Section 922(g)(1) may be applied to a person with a felony drug trafficking conviction without violating the Second Amendment.

United States v. Moreno-Salazar · filed 2025-08-26(g)(1)

Moreno asserts § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment as applied to him because disarming him based upon his prior Texas conviction for the manufacture and delivery of a controlled substance does not fit within this country’s historical tradition of regulating firearms. In the light of our recent decision in United States v. Kimble, 142 F.4th 308, 309, 317–18 (5th Cir. 2025), his contention fails.

Section 922(g)(3) may be applied to non-intoxicated marijuana users only if the government shows they pose a risk of future danger.

United States v. Harrison · filed 2025-08-26(g)(3)

To determine whether § 922(g)(3) as applied here is “consistent with” the principle that the government has correctly identified, the government must show non-intoxicated marijuana users pose a risk of future danger.

Binding Fifth Circuit precedent forecloses facial and as-applied Second Amendment challenges to § 922(g)(1).

United States v. McLeod · filed 2025-08-28(g)(1)

As McLeod concedes, his facial and as-applied constitutional challenges to § 922(g)(1) are foreclosed.

Section 922(g)(5)(A)’s prohibition on firearm possession by undocumented non-citizens remains constitutional under binding Fourth Circuit precedent after Bruen and Rahimi.

United States v. Murillo-Lopez · filed 2025-08-18(g)(5)(A)

We thus conclude that Carpio-Leon’s Second Amendment holding survives Bruen and Rahimi, and that we as a panel lack the power to depart from it.

Section 922(g)(1)’s firearm possession ban applies to people with nonviolent felony convictions and withstands their Second Amendment challenge.

United States v. Smith · filed 2025-09-03(g)(1)

When individuals are convicted of felonies, federal law prohibits the possession of firearms. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). ... Challenging this conviction, he claims that the law violates the Second Amendment because his prior convictions didn’t involve violence. ... Following these precedents, we reject Mr. Smith’s constitutional challenge and affirm his conviction.

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

United States v. Wilson · filed 2025-09-03(g)(1)

Therefore, the Government is correct in arguing that Wilson’s facial challenge to the validity of § 922(g)(1) is foreclosed.

Section 922(g)(1) withstands a facial Second Amendment challenge and an as-applied challenge by a person with drug-trafficking felony convictions.

United States v. Hill · filed 2025-09-03(g)(1)

Hill acknowledges—and we agree—that his facial challenge to § 922(g)(1) is foreclosed by United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 471–72 (5th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, No. 24-6625, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 2453 (U.S. June 23, 2025) (mem.). ... We answered that question in the affirmative, so Hill’s as-applied claim is now squarely foreclosed: His “predicate convictions for drug trafficking convey that he belongs to a class of dangerous felons that our regulatory tradition permits legislatures to disarm.” Id. at 318.

Section 922(g)(1) may be applied to a person convicted of a theft-related felony despite an as-applied Second Amendment challenge.

United States v. Altamirano · filed 2025-09-03(g)(1)

The Government is correct that Altamirano’s arguments are foreclosed. ... Nevertheless, because Diaz and Schnur are dispositive, we affirm the district court’s judgment without further briefing.

Section 922(g)(1) is not plainly unconstitutional as applied to a person with an extensive criminal history that includes drug distribution convictions.

United States v. Walters · filed 2025-09-04(g)(1)

We hold that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is not clearly unconstitutional as applied to Walters, an individual with numerous interactions with law enforcement since reaching the age of majority, including con- victions for drug distribution.

Section 922(g)(1) withstands an as-applied Second Amendment challenge by a person with theft and burglary convictions under Fifth Circuit precedent.

United States v. Hill · filed 2025-09-04(g)(1)

Hill’s as-applied challenge under Bruen is foreclosed based on United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458 (5th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, --- S. Ct. ----, 2025 ... WL 1727419 (June 23, 2025) (No. 24-6625), and United States v. Schnur, 132 F.4th 863 (5th Cir. 2025).

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

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

there has been no development in our jurisprudence suggesting that conviction under § 922(g)(1) is reversible plain error.

Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to a person previously convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

Campos v. United States · filed 2025-09-08(g)(1)

Section 922(g)(1) is also constitutional as applied to Movant because he has a prior conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

Section 922(g)(1) may constitutionally disarm a felon whose predicate conviction involved violent conduct, including evading arrest with a vehicle.

United States v. Simpson · filed 2025-09-10(g)(1)

Section 922(g)(1) is thus constitutional as applied to Simpson.

Section 922(g)(1) may constitutionally disarm people convicted of drug-trafficking felonies without an individualized assessment of dangerousness.

United States v. Mancilla · filed 2025-09-10(g)(1)

Accordingly, Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to Mancilla.

Section 922(g)(1)'s prohibition on firearm possession by felons is constitutional on its face and as applied to a person whose serious criminal history shows a danger to the community.

SIZEMORE v. United States · filed 2025-09-10(g)(1)

Section 922(g)(1) is not facially unconstitutional and is not unconstitutional as applied to Sizemore.

Section 922(g)(1) may constitutionally prohibit firearm possession by people convicted of drug trafficking felonies.

United States v. Orozco · filed 2025-09-11(g)(1)

Because Orozco’s predicate felonies involved drug trafficking, Kimble forecloses his challenge here.

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

United States v. Porter · filed 2025-09-12(g)(1)

Cortez D. Porter pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm after a felony conviction, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). On appeal, he argues that the statute of conviction violates the Second Amendment 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 both parties acknowledge, the sole issue raised on appeal is foreclosed by Diaz, 116 F.4th at 471–42.

Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to defendants whose predicate felonies include robbery or drug trafficking.

United States v. Hall · filed 2025-09-16(g)(1)

Hall’s predicate felony was robbery, so his as-applied challenge to § 922(g)(1) fails. ... Because one of Conner’s predicate felonies is a drug- trafficking offense (possession of marijuana with intent to distribute), his § 922(g)(1) challenge likewise fails.

Section 922(g)(1) may constitutionally disarm a person previously convicted of manufacturing and delivering a controlled substance.

United States v. Avitia · filed 2025-09-17(g)(1)

Because § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to Avitia based on his predicate conviction of manufacture and delivery of a controlled substance, we do not consider Avitia’s arguments regarding his predicate robbery conviction.

Section 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional under the Second Amendment, and circuit precedent forecloses as-applied challenges to it.

United States v. Graham · filed 2025-09-17(g)(1)

Though Graham renews his Bruen claims on appeal, he correctly concedes that these claims are foreclosed by United States v. Canada, 123 F.4th 159, 161 (4th Cir. 2024) (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” (cleaned up)), and United States v. Hunt, 123 F.4th 697, 702 (4th Cir. 2024) (reaffirming this court’s pre-Bruen “precedent foreclosing as-applied challenges to Section 922(g)(1)”), cert. denied, No. 24-6818, 2025 WL 1549804 (U.S. June 2, 2025).

Section 922(g)(1)’s ban on firearm possession after a felony conviction withstands a Second Amendment challenge under binding Second Circuit precedent.

United States v. Abreu · filed 2025-09-18(g)(1)

But after briefing was complete, this Court issued its decision in Zherka v. Bondi, 140 F.4th 68 (2d Cir. 2025), which rejected both facial and as-applied challenges to § 922(g). ... We agree and therefore affirm the judgment of conviction.

Section 922(g)(1) survives a facial Second Amendment challenge because it has at least one valid application.

United States v. Schrock · filed 2025-09-19(g)(1)

But this Court recognized a valid application of § 922(g)(1) in United States v. Moore, 111 F.4th 266 (3d Cir. 2024). ... Hence, Schrock’s facial challenge fails at prong one of the plain-error standard.

Section 922(g)(1) may constitutionally disarm a felon whose record shows dangerousness; possession while on parole provides an independent basis for disarmament.

United States v. Oravets · filed 2025-09-19(g)(1)

Those four felony convictions amply demonstrate that Oravets is a dangerous felon, permitting the government to disarm him. ... Because Oravets was on parole when he violated § 922(g)(1), Goins provides an independent ground for disarming him.

Section 922(g)(1) withstands facial and as-applied Second Amendment challenges, including a challenge based on a felony’s nonviolent character.

United States v. Reyes · filed 2025-09-26(g)(1)

Our decision in Zherka v. Bondi, 140 F.4th 68 (2d Cir. 2025), forecloses this argument. There we clarified that “Bogle’s rejection of a facial challenge to [§ 922(g)(1)] remains good law in this Circuit.” Id. at 75. And Reyes’s as-applied challenge fares no better; in Zherka, we categorically rejected the argument, reprised here, that “the prohibition of firearms by convicted [nonviolent] felons violates the Second Amendment.” Id. at 96.

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

United States v. Farrier · filed 2025-09-30(g)(1)

Indeed, in Dubois, we explained that neither Bruen nor Rahimi had abrogated our decision in Rozier, which upheld the con- stitutionality of section 922(g)(1). ... In short, because Rozier continues to bind us, Farrier’s chal- lenge must fail.

Section 922(g)(1) and (o) may be applied to a person who possesses firearms while on supervised release without violating the Second Amendment.

United States v. Shelton · filed 2025-10-03(g)(1), (o)

The District Court properly denied Shelton’s motions to withdraw his guilty plea and to dismiss the indictment because his charges under § 922(g)(1) and § 922(o) did not violate the Second Amendment.

Section 922(g)(9) is facially constitutional under the Second Amendment.

United States v. Owens · filed 2025-10-03(g)(9)

We agree with the parties that Owens’s facial challenge to § 922(g)(9) is foreclosed by our recent decision in United States v. Nutter, 137 F.4th 224 (4th Cir. 2025), petition for cert. filed, No. 25-5339 (U.S. Aug. 13, 2025). There, we held that the statute is facially constitutional and saved “for another case the question of whether or when as-applied challenges to § 922(g)(9) can be made.”

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. Storey · filed 2025-10-08(g)(1)

Neither Bruen nor Rahimi declare section 922(g)(1) unconstitutional, and we have upheld the statute as constitutional under the Second Amendment.

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

United States v. Simonson · filed 2025-10-08(g)(1)

Owen argues the district court should have dismissed his indictment because the felon-in-possession statute violates the Second Amendment both on its face and as applied to him. ... As he concedes, this argument is foreclosed by binding Eighth Circuit precedent.

Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to all felons under the Second Amendment.

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

Gross’s argument that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment as applied to him is precluded by United States v. Duarte, 137 F.4th 743 (9th Cir. 2025) (en banc), which held that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to all felons.

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

United States v. Darell Wm. Craft, Jr. · filed 2025-10-10(g)(1)

All in all, Craft’s criminal history shows that he is dangerous, and he has failed to meet his burden to prove otherwise. ... Section 922(g)(1) is thus constitutional as applied to him.

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

United States v. Buchanan · filed 2025-10-14(g)(1)

As the government notes, though, we recently reaffirmed circuit precedent holding that fel- ons are categorically disqualified from exercising their Second Amendment rights. ... Applying our prior-precedent rule, we must reject Bu- chanan’s constitutional challenge to § 922(g).

Section 922(g)(1) may constitutionally bar a dangerous felon from possessing a firearm even when his latest firearm offense was nonviolent.

United States v. Kalib Tucker · filed 2025-10-14(g)(1)

Separately, Tucker contends that the federal felon-in-possession statute is unconstitutional as applied to him. ... But he would have us consider that he spent most of his adult life behind bars, that he committed his violent crimes at a young age, and that the instant offense was non-violent. All this may be true, but our constitutional analysis doesn’t demand that we consider these characteristics. Our command is to consider whether Tucker is a dangerous felon. We conclude that he is.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by convicted felons is not facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

United States v. Arredondo · filed 2025-10-14(g)(1)

His argument that Section 922(g)(1) is facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment is foreclosed by United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 471–72 (5th Cir. 2024).

For an as-applied Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1), the government must present historical analogues justifying the statute’s application to the defendant.

United States v. Smith · filed 2025-10-16(g)(1)

On remand, the government must meet its burden under Bruen to present his- torical analogues justifying § 922(g)(1)’s constitutionality as applied to Smith.

Section 922(g)(1) may be applied to a felon whose assault and drug-trafficking convictions make him presumptively dangerous.

United States v. Brooks · filed 2025-10-16(g)(1)

In short, Brooks’s as-applied challenge to § 922(g)(1) fails.

A person convicted under § 922(g)(1) cannot bring a facial Second Amendment challenge to the statute.

United States v. Locket · filed 2025-10-17(g)(1)

Given our precedent, as acknowledged in Locket’s reply brief and letter of notification, his facial challenge to his § 922(g)(1) conviction is foreclosed.

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

United States v. Baker · filed 2025-10-20(g)(1)

On appeal Matthew argues that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment on its face and as applied to him. As Matthew acknowledges, however, this court has held otherwise. See Vincent v. Bondi, 127 F.4th 1263, 1265–66 (10th Cir. 2025) (holding that § 922(g)(1) does not violate the Second Amendment when applied to “nonviolent offenders”). We therefore reject this argument and affirm Matthew’s ... conviction on Count IV.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by a felon is enforceable against an as-applied Second Amendment challenge foreclosed by circuit precedent.

United States v. Lee · filed 2025-10-21(g)(1)

Lee’s as-applied challenge to § 922(g)(1) is foreclosed as well.

Section 922(g)(1) may be applied to a felon whose conduct and criminal history show that he poses a significant threat of danger.

United States v. William Suggs, IV · filed 2025-10-22(g)(1)

Thus, § 922(g)(1) as applied to Suggs does not violate the Second Amendment.

Section 922(g)(9) remains facially constitutional under the Second Amendment following Bruen.

United States v. Randell Proctor · filed 2025-10-22(g)(9)

He concedes, however, that his challenge to the statute is foreclosed by our recent decision in United States v. Nutter, 137 F.4th 224, 226, 229-33 (4th Cir. 2025), petition for cert. filed, No. 25-5339 (U.S. Aug. 13, 2025), in which we held that § 922(g)(9) remains facially constitutional following Bruen. We agree that Nutter controls and therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

An unpreserved challenge to § 922(g)(1) does not establish a clear or obvious Second Amendment violation when it would require extending existing precedent.

United States v. Bermea · filed 2025-10-23(g)(1)

Because Bermea’s unpreserved as-applied argument would require extending existing 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 dangerous people, and a challenge only to the controlling procedure for determining dangerousness does not defeat its application.

United States v. Wilkins · filed 2025-10-28(g)(1)

Wilkins also challenges the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) as applied to him. As this court explained in Williams, § 922(g)(1) is constitutional “as applied to dangerous people.” Williams, 113 F.4th at 663. Wilkins challenges only the procedure for determining dangerousness that Williams delineated, not the district court’s determination that he is dangerous. But as explained above, we are bound by Williams. See United States v. Williams, No. 24-1244, 2025 WL 1089531, at *2 (6th Cir. Apr. 11, 2025) (concluding that the “dangerousness inquiry described in Williams” is not unconstitutional). Wilkins’s as-applied challenge similarly fails.

Section 922(g)(1) prohibits convicted felons from possessing firearms, and Fourth Circuit precedent forecloses as-applied constitutional challenges to convictions under it.

United States v. Johnson · filed 2025-11-14(g)(1)

Finally, our decision in United States v. Hunt, 123 F.4th 697 (4th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 2756 (2025), forecloses Johnson’s as-applied challenge to the constitutionality of his § 922(g)(1) conviction.

Section 922(g)(1) withstands an as-applied constitutional challenge by a person who violated it while on supervised release.

United States v. Jones · filed 2025-10-28(g)(1)

During the pendency of this appeal, our court rejected as-applied challenges to § 922(g)(1) where defendants were on supervised release at the time they violated § 922(g)(1). ... Jones correctly concedes his as-applied-constitutional challenge is now foreclosed.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by felons does not violate the Second Amendment on its face or as applied to a felon.

United States v. Wims · filed 2025-11-18(g)(1)

argues that section 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, both facially and as applied to him. Based on our re- cent decision in United States v. Dubois, 139 F.4th 887 (11th Cir. 2025), we affirm.

Section 922(g)(1) survives a facial Second Amendment challenge and may constitutionally apply to a person whose record shows a significant danger to the community.

Cade · filed 2025-11-18(g)(1)

The Court therefore concludes that Mr. Cade’s § 922(g)(1) conviction is constitutional under Bruen, both facially and as applied to Mr. Cade.

Section 922(o) withstands a facial Second Amendment challenge because it covers some machine guns that an individual cannot carry.

United States v. Charles · filed 2025-11-20(o)

Because § 922(o) is constitutional in some of its applications, this facial challenge fails.

Section 922(g)(1) may constitutionally disarm a person whose predicate felony convictions are crimes of violence.

United States v. Hernandez · filed 2025-11-20(g)(1)

Therefore, § 922(g)(1) may be constitutionally applied to disarm Hernandez.

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

United States v. Fletcher · filed 2025-11-21(g)(1)

We rejected a facial challenge to § 922(g)(1) under Bruen in United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 471-72 (5th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 2822 (2025). Accordingly, the Government’s unopposed motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED.

Section 922(g)(1) cannot permanently disarm a person whose only predicate felony is firearm possession as a habitual marijuana user without sufficient evidence of intoxication while possessing a firearm.

United States v. Mitchell · filed 2025-11-21(g)(1)

Guided by history and constrained by precedent, we hold that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to Mitchell’s § 922(g)(3) predicate offense.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by people convicted of a felony remains constitutional after Bruen.

United States of America v. Smith · filed 2025-11-24(g)(1)

In Meacham v. United States, the Court found that Bruen did not render felon in possession laws unconstitutional and that the Sixth Circuit has found them “presumptively lawful”. ... The Court adopts that same reasoning here.

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

United States v. Reese · filed 2025-11-25(g)(1)

Finally, Reese’s as-applied challenge to § 922(g)(1) is foreclosed based on his prior convictions for robbery and burglary.

Section 922(g)(1) may constitutionally bar firearm possession by a person previously convicted of aggravated battery under Louisiana law.

United States v. McCree · filed 2025-12-01(g)(1)

Applying the same analysis as in Schnur, McCree’s conviction for aggravated battery under Louisiana law also serves as a constitutionally-adequate predicate for the § 922(g)(1) conviction.

Section 922(g)(1) withstands an as-applied Second Amendment challenge by a person with a predicate drug trafficking conviction.

United States v. Edwards · filed 2025-12-02(g)(1)

In addition, his as-applied challenge fails because he has a predicate conviction for a drug trafficking offense.

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

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

Thus, as conceded by Mingo in his reply brief, his facial and as- applied challenges to his conviction under the Second Amendment are foreclosed by our binding precedent in Zherka.

Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional on its face and may be applied to a felon whose criminal history shows that he is dangerous.

United States v. Deaires Martex Foster · filed 2025-12-03(g)(1)

So, Foster’s facial challenge to § 922(g)(1) necessarily fails. ... Therefore, Foster’s age did not dispel his dangerousness.

Section 922(g)(1) may be applied to a felon whose criminal history establishes dangerousness, even without an explicit dangerousness finding by the district court when that omission did not affect his substantial rights.

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

Simply put, the district court’s failure to make an explicit dangerousness determination did not affect Crawford’s substantial rights. There is enough evidence in his criminal history for any reasonable factfinder to determine that he is a dangerous person. Crawford’s Second Amendment challenge therefore fails.

Section 922(g)(1) remains enforceable against facial and as-applied Second Amendment challenges under controlling Fifth Circuit precedent.

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

Martin also argues that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional both 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). ... Martin’s facial challenge is foreclosed, as he concedes. ... His as-applied challenge is also foreclosed.

Section 922(g)(1)’s lifetime disarmament cannot be applied to a person whose predicate felony was attempted marijuana cultivation when the government fails to show a supporting historical tradition.

United States v. Doucet · filed 2025-12-08(g)(1)

In sum, on this record, the Government’s two proposed analogues—severe historical punishments for producers or traffickers of contraband and the disarmament of those legislatively labeled “dangerous”—do not justify § 922(g)(1)’s lifetime disarmament for attempted marijuana cultivation. Neither analogue satisfies the Government’s burden under Bruen.

Section 922(g)(1) withstands facial Second Amendment challenges and remains constitutional as applied to a person convicted of carjacking.

United States v. Green · filed 2025-12-08(g)(1)

Green’s constitutional challenges to § 922(g)(1) also straightforwardly fail under our precedent.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by felons withstands facial and as-applied Second Amendment challenges, including challenges by people convicted of nonviolent felonies.

United States v. Horan · filed 2025-12-09(g)(1)

In sum, our holding in Zherka forecloses Horan’s arguments as to the constitutionality of Section 922(g)(1), both facially and as applied to him.

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

United States v. Davis · filed 2025-12-09(g)(1)

He argues that section 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, both facially and as applied to him. Based on our decision in United States v. Dubois, 139 F.4th 887 (11th Cir. 2025), we affirm.

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

Carter · filed 2025-12-09(g)(1)

Even if Carter’s motion was timely, it would fail on the merits. The Eleventh Circuit has held that § 922(g)(1) doesn’t violate the Second Amendment. ... Thus, it “plainly appears from [Carter’s] motion” that he is not entitled to relief, and the court finds it appropriate to deny Carter’s motion and dismiss this case without requiring the Government to respond.

An as-applied challenge to § 922(g)(1) based on a prior Texas drug-delivery felony does not establish plain error without binding authority excluding that felony as a predicate.

United States v. Ramirez · filed 2025-12-11(g)(1)

Because Ramirez does not cite any binding authority holding that his prior felony—delivery of a controlled substance in violation of Texas law—is not a viable § 922(g)(1) predicate in the wake of Bruen, he cannot show that any error in denying his motion to dismiss was clear or obvious.

Section 922(g)(1) may be applied to disarm a person who commits the firearm offense while on supervised release.

United States v. Moore · filed 2025-12-15(g)(1)

Also, Moore’s as-applied challenge fails because individuals who commit this offense while on supervised release may be disarmed.

Section 922(g)(1) does not violate the Second Amendment as applied to a defendant who was under supervision when indicted.

United States v. Smith · filed 2025-12-16(g)(1)

Smith also moved to dismiss his indictment, arguing that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment as applied to him. However, Smith concedes that his argument is foreclosed by our decisions in United States v. Moore and United States v. Quailes because he was under supervision at the time of his indictment. ... We agree.

Section 922(g)(5)(A) can constitutionally bar firearm possession by an unlawfully present alien who has not followed the legal process for avowing allegiance, even if he has extensive ties to the United States.

United States v. Duque-Ramirez · filed 2025-12-16(g)(5)(A)

And so, applying the principle identified here, we reject Mr. Duque-Ramirez’s as-applied challenge to § 922(g)(5)(A).

Section 922(g)(1) cannot permanently disarm someone based solely on a failure-to-pay-child-support conviction after the debt has been paid, absent a historical justification.

United States v. Cockerham · filed 2025-12-17(g)(1)

Historical analysis determines whether a particular individual can be disarmed for life under § 922(g)(1). And we are unable to find a historical basis for disarming Cockerham for the rest of his life, just because he was once convicted of failure to pay child support.

Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to a person previously convicted of unlawfully carrying a loaded handgun.

United States v. Speaks · filed 2025-12-19(g)(1)

This Court similarly declines to downplay the severity of a conviction for unlawfully carrying a loaded deadly weapon and holds that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and D.C. Code § 22-4503(a)(1) are constitutional as applied to Speaks.

Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional on its face and as applied to a person whose prior felonies did not involve firearms.

United States v. Rodriguez · filed 2025-12-23(g)(1)

Zherka’s holding that § 922(g)(1) is constitutionally applied to non-violent felonies indicates that the danger to the public and the severity of the felony do not affect the as-applied constitutionality of § 922(g)(1).

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

United States v. Thomas White, III · filed 2025-12-23(g)(1)

He ar- gues that section 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, both facially and as applied to him. The government moves for summary affirmance. We grant the government’s mo- tion and affirm.

Section 922(g)(1) withstands an as-applied Second Amendment challenge by a person previously convicted of possessing marijuana with intent to distribute under Georgia law.

United States v. Marquise White · filed 2025-12-30(g)(1)

First, this Court’s precedents squarely foreclose White’s as- applied Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1).

Section 922(g)(5)(A)’s prohibition on firearm possession by noncitizens unlawfully in the United States survives an as-applied Second Amendment challenge because it is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

United States v. Vazquez-Ramirez · filed 2026-01-02(g)(5)(A)

And like our sister circuits, we conclude that the ... government has met its burden to show that § 922(g)(5)(A) is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

Section 922(g)(4)'s ban on firearm possession after involuntary commitment is facially constitutional because it has applications consistent with the Second Amendment.

United States v. Gould · filed 2026-01-02(g)(4)

Disarmament under § 922(g)(4) is facially constitutional because situations exist where it may be applied consistent with the Second Amendment.

Section 922(g)(1)’s felon-in-possession ban withstands a facial Second Amendment challenge under binding circuit precedent.

United States v. Will Parr · filed 2026-01-06(g)(1)

The government is clearly correct that Parr’s argument as to the facial constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) is foreclosed by our holding in United States v. Dubois, 139 F.4th 887 (11th Cir. 2025), which upheld the felon-in-possession ban in § 922(g)(1) against a Second Amendment challenge.

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

United States v. Sowe · filed 2026-01-07(g)(1)

The parties are also correct that Sowe’s facial challenge to § 922(g)(1) is foreclosed.

A defendant on state probation cannot prevail on a facial or as-applied Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1).

United States v. Taylor · filed 2026-01-07(g)(1)

Dijuan Taylor appeals from the District Court’s judgment of sentence, arguing that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment facially and as applied to him.1 However, Taylor concedes that his arguments are foreclosed by our decisions in United States v. Moore and United States v. Quailes because he was on state probation at the time of his indictment.2 We agree.

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

United States v. Jeffery · filed 2026-01-07(g)(1)

As Jeffery acknowledges, his facial Second Amendment challenge is foreclosed by United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 471–72 (5th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 2822 (2025).

Section 922(g)(1)’s ban on firearm possession by convicted felons withstands an as-applied Second Amendment challenge based on a nonviolent criminal history under binding circuit precedent.

United States v. Beaubrun · filed 2026-01-08(g)(1)

Here, we conclude that the government is clearly right as a matter of law that Beaubrun’s as-applied constitutional challenge to § 922(g)(1) is foreclosed by Dubois II and Rozier.

Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional under the Second Amendment as applied to a person with a prior drug trafficking conviction.

United States v. Hensley · filed 2026-01-13(g)(1)

One relevant conviction occurred in 2006 and was for delivering a controlled substance, namely, between 4 and 400 grams of methamphetamine. After Hensley’s guilty plea in the present case, this court held that “disarming drug traffickers accords with the nation’s history and tradition of firearm regulation,” making Section 922(g)(1) constitutional as applied to defendants with drug-trafficking predicates. United States v. Kimble, 142 F.4th 308, 309 (5th Cir. 2025). ... Hensley’s as-applied challenge fails.

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

United States v. Tarn · filed 2026-01-16(g)(1)

But Tarn was on probation, and we have held that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional “as applied to convicts on parole or probation.” United States v. Quailes, 126 F.4th 215, 224 (3d Cir. 2025), cert. denied, 2025 WL 2823870 (Oct. 6, 2025).

Section 922(g)(1) does not facially violate the Second Amendment, and an as-applied challenge by a person on federal supervised release is foreclosed.

United States v. Yanez · filed 2026-01-19(g)(1)

We have held that § 922(g)(1) does not violate the Second Amendment on its face. See United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 471-72 (5th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 2822 (2025). Further, Yanez’s as-applied challenge is foreclosed because he was on federal supervised release at the time he committed the instant offense.

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

United States v. Buckley · filed 2026-01-21(g)(1)

We upheld the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) against a facial constitutional challenge in United States v. Bogle, 717 F.3d 281 (2d Cir. 2013), and recently confirmed that Bogle remains good law after Bruen. ... For these reasons, the district court did not err in denying Buckley’s motion to dismiss the indictment under § 922(g)(1).

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by people with qualifying convictions is consistent with the Second Amendment and applies to a defendant who has not shown that his prior conviction distinguishes him from other covered people.

United States v. Kujabi · filed 2026-01-21(g)(1)

This court thus concludes that it is bound by Medina’s holding that Section 922(g)(1) is consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding.

A Bruen challenge to § 922(g)(1)’s felon-in-possession offense is foreclosed by Fourth Circuit precedent.

United States v. Marcus Bland, Jr. · filed 2026-01-21(g)(1)

Specifically, Bland contends that pursuant to the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), the offense of § 922(g)(1) is “unconstitutional under . . . [Bruen’s] text and history standard.” See Br. of Appellant 13. As Bland acknowledges, however, that contention is foreclosed by our precedent.

Section 922(g)(9) remains subject to as-applied Second Amendment challenges, which may require further factfinding.

United States v. Jacobs · filed 2026-01-21(g)(9)

Because we do not categorically reject all as-applied challenges to § 922(g)(9), vacatur and remand for further factfinding and analysis is the appropriate course of action under these circumstances.

Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to a person whose conviction for helping a federal prisoner escape involved conduct that endangered others.

Fluker · filed 2026-01-22(g)(1)

Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to Jones, and his claims will be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.

Section 922(g)(1) may be applied to a felon found possessing a firearm without violating the Second Amendment.

United States v. Merwin Smith · filed 2026-01-23(g)(1)

Smith’s argument that his prosecution under § 922(g)(1) violated the Second Amendment is foreclosed by United States v. Jackson, 110 F.4th 1120, 1125 (8th Cir. 2024).

Section 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional, and binding Fourth Circuit precedent forecloses as-applied Second Amendment challenges to it.

United States v. Beaufort · filed 2026-01-26(g)(1)

Two of our decisions foreclose Beaufort’s challenges regarding § 922(g)(1). In United States v. Canada, we considered and rejected a constitutional challenge to § 922(g)(1), 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) (citation modified). Likewise, in United States v. Hunt, we held that neither Bruen nor United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024), “abrogates [our] precedent foreclosing as-applied challenges to Section 922(g)(1) and those decisions thus remain binding.” 123 F.4th 697, 702 (4th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 2756 (2025). Thus, Beaufort’s challenges regarding § 922(g)(1) fail.

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

United States v. Jackson · filed 2026-01-27(g)(1)

Cedric Cornell Jackson appeals his 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) conviction, asserting that the statute of his conviction is facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment pursuant to New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). ... The Government is correct that Jackson’s facial constitutional challenge is foreclosed.

Section 922(g)(9)’s firearm ban for people convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence fits the historical tradition of restricting firearm possession by people who pose a threat of physical violence.

United States v. Minor · filed 2026-01-27(g)(9)

For these reasons, we conclude, based on Rahimi, that § 922(g)(9) "fits within our regulatory tradition." Id. at 698. Accordingly, we reject Minor's Second Amendment-based challenge to his conviction.

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

United States v. Mitchell · filed 2026-01-28(g)(1)

We conclude that summary affir- mance is warranted here because Mitchell’s facial and as applied challenges are foreclosed by precedent.

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

United States v. Warren · filed 2026-01-29(g)(1)

Thus, as conceded by Warren in his reply brief, his facial and as-applied challenges to his conviction under the Second Amendment are foreclosed by our binding precedent in Zherka.

A facial Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(5)(A) fails when a valid application prevents the challenger from showing that the provision is invalid in every circumstance.

United States v. Salazar · filed 2026-01-29(g)(5)(A)

On appeal, Mr. Salazar again raises an argument that § 922(g)(5)(A) is facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, citing New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). ... For a facial challenge to be successful, the challenger must “establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the [statute] would be valid.” United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987). Mr. Salazar cannot do so considering Duque-Ramirez.

Section 922(g)(1) withstands a facial Second Amendment challenge, and a robbery conviction defeats an as-applied challenge.

United States v. Evans · filed 2026-01-29(g)(1)

We have held that § 922(g)(1) does not violate the Second Amendment on its face. ... Further, Evans’s as-applied challenge fails on the basis of his predicate conviction for robbery.

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

United States v. Taylor · filed 2026-01-30(g)(1)

For these reasons, we hold that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to Taylor and affirm the district court’s judgment.

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. Crawford · filed 2026-02-02(g)(1)

On appeal, Crawford reasserts his contention that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment, but, as he acknowledges, our court has already rejected his arguments. ... Affirmed.

Section 922(g)(1) may be applied to disarm a person previously convicted of a drug trafficking offense without violating the Second Amendment.

United States v. Jones · filed 2026-02-02(g)(1)

This circuit has recently upheld the application of § 922(g)(1) to disarm a felon previously convicted of a drug trafficking offense. ... Kimble controls this case, and Jones’s claim fails.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by convicted felons remains subject to binding Eleventh Circuit precedent that forecloses facial and as-applied Second Amendment challenges.

United States v. Vanhorn · filed 2026-02-05(g)(1)

Vanhorn’s facial and as-applied challenges are foreclosed because our prior precedents in Rozier and Dubois II have not been overruled by this Court sitting en banc or abrogated by the Supreme Court.

Section 922(g)(3) does not automatically extinguish a person’s Second Amendment right based solely on drug use, and its application may be challenged under the circumstances of a particular case.

United States v. Ledvina · filed 2026-02-06(g)(3)

Without more, drug use generally or marijuana use specifically does not automatically extinguish a person’s Second Amendment right. Id. (citing Cooper, 127 F.4th at 1097, 1098 n. 3). Consistent with Cooper and Perez, we vacate Ledvina’s § 922(g)(3) conviction and remand for the district court to reassess Ledvina’s as-applied challenge in accordance with our recent precedents.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession after a felony conviction does not violate the Second Amendment under binding Tenth Circuit precedent.

United States v. Lopez · filed 2026-02-09(g)(1)

The conviction involved possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). ... The defendant, Mr. Damian Lopez, claims that the underlying criminal statute violated the Second Amendment. But we’ve rejected this ... claim and we’re bound by our prior decision.

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

United States v. Hicks · filed 2026-02-10(g)(1)

In sum, Hicks’s facial and as-applied Second Amendment chal- lenges to § 922(g)(1) fail.

Section 922(g)(1)’s felon-in-possession prohibition is not unconstitutional as applied where the challenge is foreclosed by circuit precedent.

United States v. Perez · filed 2026-02-11(g)(1)

Finally, Perez’s argument that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to him is foreclosed by our decision United States v. Duarte, 137 F.4th 743, 762 (9th Cir. 2025) (en banc).

Section 922(g)(1) does not violate the Second Amendment on its face.

United States v. Randall · filed 2026-02-12(g)(1)

First, we have held that § 922(g)(1) does not violate the Second Amendment on its face.

Section 922(g)(5)’s prohibition on firearm possession by an illegal alien withstands the Second Amendment challenge foreclosed by Fifth Circuit precedent.

United States v. Hernandez-Ramirez · filed 2026-02-16(g)(5)

The Government moves for summary affirmance, citing United States v. Medina-Cantu, 113 F.4th 537, 542 (5th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 1318 (2025), which upheld the constitutionality of § 922(g)(5) under the Second Amendment. Hernandez-Ramirez takes no position on the motion for summary affirmance, but he correctly concedes that Medina-Cantu forecloses his challenge.