18 U.S.C. § 922

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

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

As seven other judges in this district have concluded, the D.C. Circuit has decided that felons are not entitled to the protections of the Second Amendment, and therefore § 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional.

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

Simmons v. United States · filed 2024-02-28(g)(1)

Individuals convicted under section 922(g)(1) are not law-abiding, responsible citizens who fall within the Second Amendment’s protection under Heller and Bruen.

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

United States v. Willis · filed 2024-02-29(g)(1)

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

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

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

The felon-in-possession statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), is facially constitutional.

Section 922(g)(1) withstands a Commerce Clause challenge under Fifth Circuit precedent, and an unpreserved Second Amendment challenge to it does not establish reversible plain error.

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

Massey’s commerce clause argument is foreclosed by precedent, as we have “consistently upheld the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1).” United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143 (5th Cir. 2013); see United States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 573 (5th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 2024 WL 1143799 (U.S. Mar. 18, 2024) (No. 23-6769). Moreover, applying plain error review, we recently rejected an unpreserved Bruen-based challenge to the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) under the Second Amendment. See Jones, 88 F.4th at 573-74. Accordingly, Massey fails to demonstrate reversible plain error.

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

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

Second, Bruen does not render unconstitutional Horty’s sentence for being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm as prohibited by 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2).

An unpreserved as-applied constitutional challenge to § 922(g)(1) under Bruen is foreclosed by Fifth Circuit precedent.

United States v. Ramirez · filed 2024-05-07(g)(1)

Finally, Ramirez argues for the first time on appeal that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to him in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). His unpreserved challenge is foreclosed by United States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 572-74 (5th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 2024 WL 1143799 (U.S. Mar. 18, 2024) (No. 23- 6769).

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

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

Kirby’s argument -- that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment and the Commerce Clause -- is foreclosed by our binding precedents.

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

United States v. Sanchez · filed 2024-06-18(g)(1)

As he properly concedes, our precedent forecloses his argument that Section 922(g)(1) violates the Commerce Clause. ... Likewise, Fifth Circuit precedent also forecloses his unpreserved argument that Section 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment.

An unpreserved Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) fails on plain-error review, and circuit precedent forecloses a Commerce Clause challenge to the provision.

United States v. Chavez · filed 2024-06-27(g)(1)

As Chavez concedes, his unpreserved Bruen challenge is foreclosed by our opinion in United States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571 (5th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 1081 (2024), which rejected another such challenge on the ground that any error was not plain. 88 F.4th at 573-74. Jones also rejected the argument made here that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause.

Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional under the Commerce Clause and the Second Amendment, both facially and as applied to possession of a firearm manufactured out of state.

United States v. Rambo · filed 2024-07-25(g)(1)

Because the government is “clearly correct as a matter of law” that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional under the Commerce Clause and the Second Amendment facially and as applied to Rambo, we GRANT its motion for summary affirmance.

A first-time facial challenge to § 922(g)(1) fails on plain-error review because existing precedent does not clearly establish that the felon-in-possession prohibition is unconstitutional.

United States v. Hildreth · filed 2024-07-22(g)(1)

Finally, Hildreth argues, for the first time on appeal, that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is facially unconstitutional. ... His challenge is foreclosed by United States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571 (5th Cir. 2023).

Section 922(g)(1)’s ban on firearm possession by felons remains constitutional after Bruen as applied to a person whose predicate offenses include assault on a police officer and robbery with a dangerous weapon.

United States v. Hinton · filed 2024-07-31(g)(1)

Bruen does not affect the continuing validity of Medina or the constitutionality of the felon-in-possession law and “longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons [remain] presumptively lawful.”

An unpreserved constitutional challenge to § 922(g)(1) fails on plain-error review when no binding precedent holds the provision unconstitutional and its invalidity remains unclear.

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

We see no reason to stray from Jones here, since there is still an absence of binding precedent holding that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional, and it remains unclear whether Bruen—even with Rahimi’s clarification—dictates such a result. Accordingly, we find that Moya’s plain-error challenge fails.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by felons withstands a constitutional challenge under Bruen and Rahimi.

United States v. Nordvold · filed 2024-08-20(g)(1)

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying his motion. Nordvold argues that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) and United States v. Rahimi, 144 S. Ct. 1889 (2023), but that argument is foreclosed by our prior precedent.

Section 922(g)(1)'s prohibition on firearm possession by convicted felons is constitutional without a separate assessment of each prior felony.

United States v. Cunningham · filed 2024-08-16(g)(1)

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

Section 922(g)(1) withstands Second Amendment and Commerce Clause challenges under binding Eleventh Circuit precedent, including after Bruen.

United States v. Wilson · filed 2024-09-06(g)(1)

Mr. Wilson recognizes that we’ve upheld 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) against a Second Amendment challenge, see United States v. Rozier, 598 F.3d 769, 770 (11th Cir. 2010), but argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), has abrogated our precedent. We have, however, recently rejected this exact contention. See United States v. Dubois, 94 F.4th 1284, 1291-93 (11th Cir. 2024). As for the Commerce Clause challenge, it is foreclosed by our precedent.

Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional under the Second Amendment and the Commerce Clause.

United States v. Hester · filed 2024-09-06(g)(1)

Because the government is “clearly correct as a matter of law” that section 922(g)(1) is constitutional under the Second Amendment and the Commerce Clause, we GRANT its motion for summary affirmance.

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. Carlton Martin Volz, III · filed 2024-10-07(g)(1)

Finding no essential difference between Dunlap and Volz’s appeal, we hold that Volz’s constitutional challenges to § 922(g)(1) fail for the same reasons, and we affirm his conviction by the dis- trict court.

Section 922(g)(1)’s ban on firearm possession by felons survives a constitutional challenge under plain-error review after Bruen.

United States v. Martin · filed 2024-10-15(g)(1)

We have continued to uphold the pro- vision post-Bruen. United States v. Diaz, No.23-50452, 2024 WL 4223684, at *9 (5th Cir. 2024). Accordingly, the district court did not err when it sen- tenced Martin for his violation of Section 922(g)(1).

Section 922(g)(1) remains facially constitutional after Bruen and may constitutionally prohibit a person convicted of felony burglary from possessing a firearm.

Pollard v. United States · filed 2024-10-21(g)(1)

Therefore, I conclude that Section 922(g)(1) remains constitutional after Bruen, both facially and as applied to Pollard, and that his petition must be denied on that basis.

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

Kraut v. United States · filed 2024-10-22(g)(1)

Based on the above, the court finds that § 922(g)(1) remains constitutional post Rahimi and Bruen.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession after a felony conviction remains enforceable against Second Amendment and Commerce Clause challenges foreclosed by Fifth Circuit precedent.

United States v. Womack · filed 2024-10-30(g)(1)

For the first time on appeal, he contends that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional because it violates the Second Amendment and the Commerce Clause. However, he concedes ... that these arguments are foreclosed by United States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 573-74 (5th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 1081 (2024), and United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 145-46 (5th Cir. 2013), and merely raises them to preserve the arguments for further review. ... Because summary affirmance is appropriate, see Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by felons is constitutional under the Second Amendment without felony-by-felony challenges.

Miner v. United States · filed 2024-10-31(g)(1)

Since Bruen, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has concluded that the felon-in-possession statute is constitutional and that there is “no need for felony-by-felony litigation regarding the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1).” United States v. Jackson, 110 F.4th 1120, 1125 (8th Cir. 2024). The Eighth Circuit’s decision in Jackson forecloses Plaintiff’s sole claim.

Section 922(g)(1)’s ban on firearm possession by convicted felons is constitutional under the Second Amendment after Bruen and under the Commerce Clause when the firearm was manufactured out of state.

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

First, our precedent, to which we are bound to adhere, clearly establishes that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional under Bruen. ... Second, as Reaves concedes in his response, our precedent, to which we are again bound to adhere, also clearly establishes that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional under the Commerce Clause, both ... facially because of its jurisdictional element and as applied to Reaves because he stipulated to the fact that his firearm and ammunition were manufactured out of state.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by people convicted of crimes punishable by more than one year of imprisonment withstands Second Amendment and Commerce Clause challenges under Fifth Circuit precedent.

United States v. Farley · filed 2024-10-31(g)(1)

For the first time on appeal, he argues that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional because it ... violates the Second Amendment and the Commerce Clause. ... As Farley correctly concedes, his arguments are foreclosed.

Section 922(g)(1) survives a facial Second Amendment challenge.

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

Because a panel of our court recently held that § 922(g)(1) is fa- cially constitutional under the Second Amendment, Mitchell’s constitutional challenge is clearly foreclosed.

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

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

Second, with respect to Alexander’s argument that § 922(g)(1) facially violates the Second Amendment, our precedent forecloses his facial challenge to the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1).

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by felons withstands a challenge under Bruen in the Eighth Circuit.

United States v. Vicente Young · filed 2024-11-14(g)(1)

Upon careful review, this court concludes that Young’s constitutional challenge under N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), has been rejected by this circuit. See United States v. Anderson, 771 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (8th Cir. 2014) (de novo review of constitutionality of federal statute); United States v. Jackson, 110 F.4th 1120, 1125–26 (8th Cir. 2024) (rejecting argument that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional on its face and as applied after Bruen).

Section 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional and may bar firearm possession by a person previously convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

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

First, we have already held that § 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional. ... A fortiori, someone convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon can be constitutionally dispossessed of a firearm.

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

United States v. McCoy · filed 2024-11-22(g)(1)

The district court did not plainly err by not sua sponte finding that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional facially or as applied to McCoy.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession after a felony conviction withstands Commerce Clause and Second Amendment challenges.

United States v. Williams · filed 2024-11-26(g)(1)

We pretermit the question of waiver because even if his appeal is not barred, Williams’ arguments lack merit. As Williams acknowledges, his Commerce Clause argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Perryman, 965 F.3d 424, 426 (5th Cir. 2020). Additionally, we recently held that § 922(g)(1) does not violate the Second Amendment. See United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 471 (5th Cir. 2024). Because Williams cannot prevail under any standard of review even if he did not waive his challenge, we AFFIRM.

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

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

Here, we held in Rozier that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional in all applications and the Supreme Court has not abrogated that precedent so we must apply it.

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

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

Because our prior precedent forecloses Mitchell’s challenge to the facial constitutionality of § 922(g)(1), we affirm.

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

United States v. Canada · filed 2024-12-06(g)(1)

No matter which analytical path we choose, they all lead to the same destination: Section 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional because it “has a plainly legitimate sweep” and may constitutionally be applied in at least some “set of circumstances.”

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

United States v. Jermaine Clay · filed 2024-12-31(g)(1)

This court need not decide the issue because 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is constitutional.

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

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

On appeal, Dominguez ar- gues that § 922(g)(1) is facially unconstitutional under the Second Amend- ment. This argument is foreclosed by our precedent.

Section 922(g)(1)’s ban on firearm possession by convicted felons withstands Second Amendment and Commerce Clause challenges under binding Eleventh Circuit precedent.

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

Accordingly, we affirm Williams’s conviction under § 922(g)(1).

Section 922(g)(1)'s prohibition on firearm possession by felons remains enforceable after Bruen.

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

Bruner claims Bruen made 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) facially unconstitutional. That is not true. Bruen dealt with firearm restrictions on law-abiding citizens, not felons.

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

United States v. James Anthony Brian Morelock · filed 2025-01-10(g)(1)

There, we explained that our precedents upholding the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) remain good law after Bruen. See Dubois, 94 F.4th at 1291–93. So Morelock cannot prevail on this ground.

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

United States v. Gayfield · filed 2025-01-14(g)(1)

He contends that § 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). He concedes that that argument is foreclosed by United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 471–72 (5th Cir. 2024); he presents the issue on appeal to preserve it for further review. ... Because the claim is foreclosed, summary affirmance is appropriate.

Section 922(g)(1) remains facially constitutional after Bruen.

United States v. Kewan Shade · filed 2025-01-29(g)(1)

As counsel recognized at argument, it is settled law in our circuit that § 922(g)(1) remains facially constitutional post-Bruen.

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

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

Following Rahimi, we again held that § 922(g)(1), which prohibits convicted felons from possessing guns, is constitutional. United States v. Jackson (Jackson II), 110 F.4th 1120, 1126 (8th Cir. 2024). We are bound by that decision.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by people convicted of felonies applies to nonviolent offenders and does not violate the Second Amendment.

Vincent v. Bondi · filed 2025-02-11(g)(1)

Under McCane, the Second Amendment doesn’t prevent application of § 922(g)(1) to nonviolent offenders like Ms. Vincent.

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

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

The appropriate standard of review, however, is no longer relevant because we have since held that § 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional. United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 471–72 (5th Cir. 2024). Thus, as Blake himself concedes, Diaz squarely forecloses Blake’s facial challenge, which is the only issue properly raised on appeal.

Section 922(g)(1) bars firearm possession by a person whose felony drug convictions and repeated offenses place him among the dangerous people it covers.

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

Movant’s extensive criminal history, including drug-related felonies and repeated violations of the law, places Movant squarely within the category of individuals § 922(g)(1) is designed to prohibit from possessing firearms.

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

United States v. Toney · filed 2025-02-11(g)(1)

William Danta Toney 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 Toney’s challenge is foreclosed.

A post-Bruen challenge to § 922(g)(1)’s constitutionality does not establish plain error when no binding precedent has invalidated the provision.

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

We upheld the constitutionality of section 922(g)(1) in United States v. Bogle, 717 F.3d 281, 281–82 (2d Cir. 2013), and neither Bruen nor any other binding precedent has reached a contrary holding. Because the constitutional infirmity asserted by Simmons is not clear under current law, we cannot say that his conviction was plainly erroneous.

Section 922(g)(1) withstands facial Second Amendment and Commerce Clause challenges under controlling Fifth Circuit precedent.

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

The Government is correct that Johnson’s facial Second Amendment challenge is foreclosed, see United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 471–72 (5th Cir. 2024), as is his Commerce Clause claim, see United States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 573 (5th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 1081 (2024).

Section 922(g)(1) withstands facial and as-applied constitutional challenges based on a defendant’s nonviolent prior felony.

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

Sharkey argues that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional on its face and as-applied to him. He contends that the felon-in-possession charges were unconstitutional as-applied because his prior felony was nonviolent. He adds that the straw-purchasing-conspiracy charges were unconstitutional as-applied because they rested on the prohibition from possessing a firearm as a felon. This court’s precedent forecloses these arguments.

Section 922(g)(1)'s ban on firearm possession by felons is constitutional regardless of the facts of the crime or the nature of the felony.

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

Under federal law, felons like Penn cannot possess firearms. ... In two recent cases, we held that this prohibition is constitutional, regardless of the facts of the crime itself or the nature of the underlying felony.

Section 922(g)(1) has valid applications and is constitutional as applied to people with felony theft convictions.

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

Because the court’s decision in Diaz was at least one “set of circumstances . . . under which the statute would be valid,” Diaz forecloses Medrano’s challenge to the facial constitutionality of § 922(g)(1). See id. (quoting United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987)). Furthermore, because Medrano has a prior felony conviction for vehicle theft, and because the court in Diaz concluded § 922(g)(1) was constitutional as applied to defendants with underlying felony convictions involving theft, Diaz also forecloses Medrano’s as-applied challenge to the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1).

Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to a person whose robbery conviction creates an unrebutted presumption of dangerousness.

United States v. Dante T.H. Berry · filed 2025-04-10(g)(1)

Berry’s as-applied challenge also fails. In Williams, we said that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional when applied to dangerous persons. ... Thus, our precedent forecloses his as-applied challenge, too.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by a felon withstands a Bruen challenge under Fourth Circuit precedent.

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

In his pro se supplemental brief, Barringer questions the constitutionality of his § 922(g)(1) conviction pursuant to New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). ... Finally, Barringer’s argument based on Bruen is similarly foreclosed by this court’s precedent.

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

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

Therefore, as numerous other judges in this district have concluded, Bruen does not abrogate the constitutionality of Section 922(g)(1).

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by convicted felons withstands an as-applied constitutional challenge foreclosed by Hunt.

United States v. Bush · filed 2025-05-14(g)(1)

Bush argues that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to him. In No. 24-4155, Bush’s argument is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Hunt, 123 F.4th 697, 700-04 (4th Cir. 2024), petition for cert. filed, No. 24-6818 (Mar. 20, 2025).

Section 922(g)(1) may prohibit a person convicted of a serious nonviolent financial felony from possessing firearms without an individualized dangerousness hearing.

Zherka v. Bondi · filed 2025-06-09(g)(1)

Appellant, who was convicted of a nonviolent financial felony, brings a Second Amendment and Fifth Amendment challenge to the felon-in-possession law, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which prohibits convicted felons from possessing firearms. ... His appeal fails because (1) the Second Amendment does not prohibit Congress from disarming convicted felons; and (2) he has no right to individualized process prior to the application of a categorical criminal prohibition.

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

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

Jones’s argument that § 922(g)(1) facially violates the Second Amendment 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 after Bruen and Rahimi.

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

Walls’ argument that 922(g) is unconstitutional as applied to him fails to provide a basis for relief.

Section 922(g)(1)’s ban on firearm possession by felons remains constitutional after Bruen and Rahimi, including as applied to a person with prior nonviolent felonies.

United States v. Stone · filed 2025-06-10(g)(1)

In United States v. Dubois, we rejected the same challenge and upheld § 922(g)(1)’s constitutionality even after Bruen and Rahimi.

Facial and as-applied Commerce Clause and Second Amendment challenges to § 922(g)(1) are foreclosed by Fifth Circuit precedent.

United States v. Ibarra · filed 2025-06-10(g)(1)

Ibarra argues that § 922(g)(1) exceeds Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause and violates the Second Amendment, both facially 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 Ibarra’s constitutional challenges are foreclosed.

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

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

We also clarified that Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional even as applied to “non-violent” felons. ... Accordingly, we affirm Nelson’s conviction for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by convicted felons withstands Second Amendment and Commerce Clause challenges under binding Eleventh Circuit precedent.

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

Here, we grant the government’s motion for summary affir- mance because it is clearly right as a matter of law that Johnson’s challenges to the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) are foreclosed by our binding precedents.

Section 922(g)(1) withstands facial Second Amendment and Commerce Clause challenges under binding Fifth Circuit precedent.

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

Alvarez’s Second Amendment and Commerce Clause challenges to § 922(g)(1) are foreclosed.

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

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

Gray’s facial challenge to the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) thus fails, as it is foreclosed by our holdings in both Rozier, which held that § 922(g)(1) does not violate the Second Amendment, and Dubois II, which held that neither Bruen nor Rahimi abrogated Rozier.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by people with felony convictions is not unconstitutional under the Second Amendment or the Commerce Clause on the grounds raised here.

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

On appeal, he renews his arguments that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional because it violates the Second Amendment on its face and as applied to him ... and because, as interpreted by this court, the statute exceeds Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause. ... Longoria is correct that his arguments are foreclosed.

Section 922(g)(1) remains constitutional under Bruen as applied to a repeat felon with a violent record.

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

More to the point, the court has upheld § 922(g)(1)’s constitutionality under Bruen’s historical analysis, and Mr. Briggs offers no reason to reconsider that decision. ... It equally applies here. ... Nothing in Bruen changed the government’s power to protect the public by disarming Mr. Briggs or someone with his violent record.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by felons is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

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

Moore argued that, under the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to him because it “does not reflect a robust historical tradition of distinctly similar regulations.” Our decision in United States v. Duarte forecloses that argument.

Section 922(g)(1) constitutionally prohibits firearm possession by a felon with a violent criminal history like Reyes’s.

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

Because application of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1) to Reyes “fits neatly” within our Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation and does not violate the Commerce Clause, it is facially constitutional and constitutional as applied to Reyes.

An unpreserved as-applied constitutional challenge to § 922(g)(1) fails when the defendant cannot show clear or obvious error.

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

Robinson concedes he did not raise an as-applied challenge to § 922(g)(1) in the district court but seeks plain-error review. We hold that Robinson is “unable to demonstrate the requisite clear-or-obvious error for his as-applied challenge to the constitutionality of § 922(g).”

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

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

Without further direction from the Circuit on the issue, I join all my colleagues in this District who have upheld the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) post Bruen and Rahimi.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by felons withstands facial and as-applied constitutional challenges by a person convicted of nonviolent felonies.

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

Accordingly, Sternquist’s challenges to the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) fail.

Section 922(g)(1) may constitutionally prohibit a felon on parole from possessing a gun; because it is valid as applied to him, his facial challenge also fails.

United States v. Ronell Moses, Jr. · filed 2025-07-03(g)(1)

But Moses was on parole when he was caught with the gun, and we have already held that the law may disarm paroled felons. ... That fact dooms his facial challenge too. Because the law is valid as to Moses himself, it is constitutional in at least some cases.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on possession by convicted felons is facially constitutional and constitutional as applied to a person who fired at two people from a moving car.

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

Procedural hurdles aside, Petitioner’s motion is also denied on the merits because § 922(g)(1), which prohibits the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, is constitutional both facially and as applied to Petitioner.

Section 922(g)(1) does not violate the Second Amendment or exceed Congress’s Commerce Clause authority.

United States v. Ryan · filed 2025-07-18(g)(1)

However, we have since held that Section 922(g)(1) does not violate the Second Amendment under that framework. ... Second, Ryan raises a Commerce Clause challenge to Section 922(g)(1). However, we have repeatedly held that Congress did not exceed its Commerce Clause authority in enacting the statute. ... We therefore reject both constitutional challenges.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by felons withstands an as-applied constitutional challenge under controlling Eighth Circuit precedent.

Diani v. United States · filed 2025-07-21(g)(1)

For two reasons, the Court construes this ground as a constitutional challenge to section 922(g)(1) and not as an attack on any of the guideline enhancements. ... As discussed above, Eighth Circuit precedent rejects Diani’s argument that he was charged under an unconstitutional statute. Thus, the Court rejects Diani’s second ground for relief.

Section 922(g)(1)’s restriction on firearm possession by felons does not require a felony-by-felony Second Amendment analysis.

Jackson v. United States · filed 2025-07-21(g)(1)

Section 922(g)(1) regulates conduct that is presumptively unlawful and, accordingly, is not protected by the Second Amendment. The Court thus need not here undertake a “felony-by-felony” determination.

Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to a person whose prior felonies include dangerous crimes such as voluntary manslaughter.

Turner v. United States · filed 2025-07-29(g)(1)

These are sufficiently dangerous crimes under Williams and, therefore, Section 922(g) is constitutional as applied to Petitioner.

Section 922(g)(1)’s felon-in-possession prohibition remains valid under Bruen and related decisions.

Lint v. United States · filed 2025-07-29(g)(1)

Finally, the Tenth Circuit has rejected the claim that Bruen and other cases have invalidated ... Defendant’s statute of conviction, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). ... Based upon this, the Court finds that it ... is barred by the statute of limitations and fails on the merits.

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

United States v. Miller · filed 2025-08-04(g)(1)

Zherka therefore forecloses Miller’s argument that to § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional, both facially and as-applied to his conviction.

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

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

Because our reasoning in Zherka applies with equal force here, Acevedo’s facial and as applied challenges to the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) fail.

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

United States v. Sabree · filed 2025-08-04(g)(1)

For these reasons, we held that Congress has “a legislative power, consistent with the Second Amendment, to disarm categories of persons presumed to be dangerous,” including felons like Sabree. Id. at 90. As a result, the district court did not err in denying Sabree’s motion to dismiss the indictment.

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

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

As even Stokes acknowledges in briefing, his facial and as-applied challenges to § 922(g)(1)’s constitutionality are squarely foreclosed by our decisions in United States v. Canada, 123 F.4th 159 (4th Cir. 2024), and United States v. Hunt, 123 F.4th 697 (4th Cir. 2024).

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by a person with a felony conviction withstands the Commerce Clause and Second Amendment challenges raised here.

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

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

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

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

Accordingly, Gonzalez’s challenges to the constitutionality of section 922(g)(1) fail.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by felons withstands an as-applied constitutional challenge by a non-violent felon under Duarte.

United States v. Detrant · filed 2025-08-14(g)(1)

Detrant first argues that pursuant to New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) and United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024), § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to him, a non-violent felon. This argument is foreclosed by our recent en banc decision in United States v. Duarte, 137 F.4th 743, 762 (9th Cir. 2025) (en banc).

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

United States v. Oquendo · filed 2025-08-18(g)(1)

Therefore, we affirm Oquendo’s conviction for possessing ammunition as a convicted felon, in violation of § 922(g)(1).

Section 922(g)(1)’s ban on firearm possession by convicted felons withstands Second Amendment and Commerce Clause challenges under binding circuit precedent.

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

Kirby’s argument -- that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment and the Commerce Clause -- is foreclosed by our binding precedents.

Section 922(g)(1) withstands facial Second Amendment and Commerce Clause challenges under Fifth Circuit precedent.

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

For the first time on appeal, Goodspeed also challenges his conviction, urging that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment on its face in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), and that the statute exceeds Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. As he concedes, both arguments are foreclosed by this court’s precedent.

Section 922(g)(1) withstands a facial Second Amendment challenge because most applications disarm dangerous individuals, and it may be applied to a felon whose record shows he is dangerous.

United States v. Avis Damone Coward · filed 2025-09-22(g)(1)

Since “most applications” of § 922(g)(1) disarm dangerous individuals, the provision is “not susceptible to a facial challenge.” ... These offenses confirm that Coward is—and has long been—dangerous. He may therefore be disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.

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

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

But we do, and we are bound to uphold § 922(g)(1)’s constitutionality as applied to Forbis and Smith.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by felons remains constitutional under Bruen and Rahimi in the Tenth Circuit.

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

Next, Campbell contends (for preservation purposes) that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional under 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). We recently rejected this argument. Vincent v. Bondi, 127 F.4th 1263, 1264 (10th Cir. 2025). And because “[w]e are bound by the precedent of prior panels absent en banc reconsideration or a superseding contrary decision by the Supreme Court,” we reach the same result here.

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

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

Chilton’s facial challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is foreclosed by United States v. Jackson, 110 F.4th 1120 (8th Cir. 2024); see also United States v. Winston, 850 F.3d 377, 380 (8th Cir. 2017) (plain error review).

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

Jackson v. United States of America · filed 2025-10-16(g)(1)

First, it is well-settled that depriving convicted felons of their right to bear arms does not run afoul of the Second Amendment.

Section 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional, and a convicted felon cannot successfully challenge its application unless the felony conviction was pardoned or the law defining the felony was found unlawful.

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

Following Bruen, however, § 922(g)(1) “is facially constitutional,” United States v. Canada, 123 F.4th 159, 161 (4th Cir. 2024), and a person convicted of a felony “cannot make out a successful as-applied challenge to [§] 922(g)(1) unless the felony conviction is pardoned or the law defining the crime of conviction is found unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful,” Hunt, 123 F.4th at 700 (internal quotation marks omitted). Pagan does not contend that either of these two conditions applies in his case.

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

United States v. Aramboles · filed 2025-10-27(g)(1)

Because our reasoning in Zherka applies with equal force here, Aramboles’s facial and as-applied challenges to the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) fail.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by convicted felons is facially constitutional, and Fourth Circuit precedent forecloses the as-applied Second Amendment challenge raised here.

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

Two of our recent decisions foreclose Heaggeans’s Second Amendment challenges on appeal. In United States v. Canada, we considered and rejected a constitutional challenge to § 922(g)(1), holding that “[s]ection 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional because it has a plainly legitimate sweep and may constitutionally be applied in at least some set of circumstances.”

Section 922(g)(1) does not violate the Second Amendment by disqualifying felons as a class from possessing firearms.

United States v. Frederick Murray, Jr. · filed 2025-11-21(g)(1)

And our precedent establishes that section 922(g)(1) does not violate the Constitution by disqualifying felons as a class from exercising their Second Amendment rights.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by felons remains presumptively lawful after Bruen.

Kimes · filed 2025-11-24(g)(1)

Therefore, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is presumptively lawful and Mr. Kimes’s argument is meritless.

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

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

Finally, Lesane challenges the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) in light of the decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). However, this argument is foreclosed by our recent decision in Zherka v. Bondi, 140 F.4th 68 (2d Cir. 2025).

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

United States v. Pettyjohn · filed 2025-12-10(g)(1)

Here, Pettyjohn makes no specific arguments on the issue, and he concedes that this Court’s precedent forecloses his challenge. We agree. See United States v. Jackson, 110 F.4th 1120, 1125, 1127 (8th Cir. 2024) (holding that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional and that “there is no need for felony-by-felony litigation regarding [its] constitutionality”).

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

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

As Fitzpatrick acknowledges, this claim is 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)). See United States v. Hunt, 123 F.4th 697, 702 (4th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 2756 (2025). We therefore uphold the denial of Fitzpatrick’s motion.

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

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

Here, the government is clearly correct, as a matter of law, that Angrand’s argument as to the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) is foreclosed by our holding in Dubois II that neither Bruen nor Rahimi abrogated Rozier, and thus, our holding in Rozier that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional continues to be binding precedent for this Circuit.

Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional on its face and as applied to convicted felons with nonviolent predicate convictions.

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

We find no error. Mackins’s argument is clearly foreclosed by Zherka v. Bondi, in which this Court held that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional both on its face and as applied to convicted felons with nonviolent predicate crimes of conviction.

Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional on its face and as applied to convicted felons with nonviolent predicate convictions.

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

We find no such error. In Zherka v. Bondi, we confirmed that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional on its face and as applied to convicted felons with nonviolent predicate crimes of conviction. See 140 F.4th 68, 74–75, 93 (2d Cir. 2025). That holding is controlling here.

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. Dale Mitchell, Jr. · filed 2025-12-19(g)(1)

Mitchell contends that his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional, as applied to him, based on N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). ... This court has rejected this argument, both facially and as applied.

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

United States v. Castro · filed 2025-12-31(g)(1)

Here, Castro’s claim is foreclosed because, as we reiterated in Dubois II, Rozier held that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional. Neither Supreme Court precedent nor this Court’s precedent has overruled that holding.

Section 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional, and a person convicted of a felony cannot successfully challenge its application unless the conviction is pardoned or the law defining the offense is found unlawful.

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

Following Bruen, § 922(g)(1) “is facially constitutional.” United States v. Canada, 123 F.4th 159, 161 (4th Cir. 2024). Additionally, a person convicted of a felony “cannot make out a successful as-applied challenge to [§] 922(g)(1) unless the felony conviction is pardoned or the law defining the crime of conviction is found unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful.” Hunt, 123 F.4th at 700 (internal quotation marks omitted). Neither condition applies here. Accordingly, Logan fails to establish plain constitutional error in his conviction or reversible error in the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment.

Section 922(g)(1)’s felon-in-possession prohibition withstands a facial constitutional challenge previously rejected by the Eighth Circuit.

United States v. Reynolds · filed 2025-12-24(g)(1)

We start with the facial constitutionality of the felon-in-possession statute, see id., which he can raise despite his guilty plea, see United States v. Nunez-Hernandez, 43 F.4th 857, 860 (8th Cir. 2022). ... Here, there was no error, plain or otherwise, because we have already rejected a challenge like this one.

Section 922(g)(1) remains facially constitutional under the Bruen framework.

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

However, the district court correctly rejected that claim of factual innocence and properly concluded that our prior decision in United States v. Bogle, 717 F.3d 281 (2d Cir. 2013), which held that § 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional, survived the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen. Indeed, we subsequently addressed that precise issue in Zherka v. Bondi, 140 F.4th 68, 74–75 (2d Cir. 2025), and affirmed that our holding in Bogle remains good law under the Bruen framework.

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

United States v. Shaninth Ray · filed 2026-02-06(g)(1)

We conclude that the district court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss the indictment because Ray’s facial and as-applied challenges to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) are foreclosed by binding Eighth Circuit precedent.

Section 922(g)(1) does not violate the Second Amendment as applied to people convicted of nonviolent felonies.

United States v. Lewis · filed 2026-02-13(g)(1)

It does not matter whether Lewis’s predicate felony prohibiting his possession of firearms was for a non-violent offense. ... Because Vincent holds that McCane remains binding, published precedent, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

Section 922(g) prohibits people previously convicted of a felony from possessing firearms, ammunition, or destructive devices, but does not prohibit possession of other dangerous weapons.

United States v. Gonzales · filed 2026-02-13(g)

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), persons previously convicted of a felony are prohibited from pos- sessing firearms, ammunition, or destructive devices.

Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to a convicted felon on probation, and Congress had Commerce Clause authority to enact it.

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

Naylor also contends that his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment facially and as applied to him, and unconstitutionally exceeds the federal government’s powers under the commerce clause. Naylor was on probation at the time of his offense and concedes that his arguments are foreclosed by precedent. We agree.

Challenges to § 922(g)(1) under the Second Amendment and Commerce Clause are foreclosed by Fifth Circuit precedent.

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

Goines correctly concedes that his Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) is foreclosed. See United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 467-72 (5th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 2822 (2025). He is also correct that his Commerce Clause argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 145 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Perryman, 965 F.3d 424, 426 (5th Cir. 2020).

Section 922(g)(1) withstands Commerce Clause and Second Amendment challenges under binding Eleventh Circuit precedent.

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

As Stewart’s constitutional arguments are foreclosed by binding precedent, he cannot demonstrate plain error.

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

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

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

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

James Cusick, Sr. v. DOJ · filed 2026-02-10(g)(1)

Canada held that § 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional. Id. at 161. Thus, Canada forecloses Cusick’s facial challenge.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by convicted felons is facially constitutional under the Commerce Clause and Second Amendment, and applies constitutionally to a felon whose firearm traveled in interstate commerce.

United States v. Flournoy · filed 2026-03-03(g)(1)

Section 922(g) is constitutional facially and as applied to Flournoy under both the Commerce Clause and the Second Amendment.

Section 922(g)(1) is not facially unconstitutional because it is constitutional as applied to people convicted of some felonies.

Montano-Lopez · filed 2026-03-03(g)(1)

Accordingly, as a matter of stare decisis, the Court is bound to reject defendant’s facial challenge to the constitutionality of Section 922(g)(1).

Section 922(g)(1)’s ban on firearm possession by felons withstands Barringer’s Bruen-based constitutional challenge under binding Fourth Circuit precedent.

United States v. Barringer · filed 2026-02-18(g)(1)

In his pro se supplemental brief, Barringer questions the constitutionality of his § 922(g)(1) conviction pursuant to New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). ... Finally, Barringer’s argument based on Bruen is similarly foreclosed by this court’s precedent.

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by felons remains constitutional under Bruen, including against facial and as-applied challenges.

Henderson v. United States of America · filed 2026-03-13(g)(1)

Henderson’s contention that Bruen rendered § 922(g)(1) unconstitutional on its face and as applied is foreclosed by Eighth Circuit precedent.

Section 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional, and binding Fourth Circuit precedent forecloses an as-applied challenge by a nonviolent offender.

United States v. Darius Little · filed 2026-03-17(g)(1)

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

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by felons is constitutional under controlling Eighth Circuit precedent.

Dorsey · filed 2026-03-18(g)(1)

In his sole claim for relief, Dorsey asserts that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). However, Dorsey’s claim is foreclosed by the Eighth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Jackson, 110 F.4th 1120 (8th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 2708, 221 L. Ed. 2d 970 (2025).

Section 922(g)(1) is not subject to a facial constitutional challenge under controlling Fifth Circuit precedent.

United States v. Cerrillo · filed 2026-03-23(g)(1)

As Cerrillo acknowledges, his facial challenge to the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) is foreclosed by United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 471-72 (5th Cir. 2024), cert. denied 145 S. Ct. 2822 (2025).

A constitutional challenge to § 922(g)(1) is foreclosed in the Tenth Circuit by Vincent v. Bondi.

United States v. Shannon · filed 2026-03-30(g)(1)

In his opening brief, the appellant’s sole argument is that the statute he was convicted of violating, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), is unconstitutional. ... the appellant concedes his only appellate issue is foreclosed by circuit precedent. ... In light of the foregoing, the abatement of proceedings in this appeal is lifted, and the United States’ motion for summary affirmance is granted. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Section 922(g)(1)’s ban on ammunition possession by convicted felons withstands White’s Second Amendment challenge under Bruen.

United States v. White · filed 2026-03-31(g)(1)

But White concedes that his argument is foreclosed by Zherka v. Bondi, 140 F.4th 68 (2d Cir. 2025), in which this Court held that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional both on its face and as applied to felons convicted of nonviolent predicate crimes. He is therefore entitled to no relief on this basis.

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

United States v. Nemeth · filed 2026-04-13(g)(1)

The district court did not err by rejecting Mr. Nemeth’s constitutional challenge to § 922(g)(1), and thus did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to dismiss.

Section 922(g)(3) is not facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment under binding Eighth Circuit precedent.

United States v. Chuol · filed 2026-04-15(g)(3)

On appeal, Chuol contends that the district court should have dismissed the firearm charge on the sole ground that § 922(g)(3) is facially unconstitutional under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). Choul acknowledges that we rejected that argument in United States v. Veasley, 98 F.4th 906 (8th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 304 (2024), but asks that we overrule that decision. We cannot do so.

Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional on its face and as applied to people with prior felony convictions, including convictions from twelve years earlier.

United States v. Sanders · filed 2026-04-20(g)(1)

As Sanders concedes in his supplemental brief, his constitutional challenges are foreclosed by Zherka v. Bondi, 140 F.4th 68 (2d Cir. 2025), in which we confirmed, following Bruen, that § 922(g)(1) remains constitutional on its face, as applied to persons with prior felony convictions, and as applied to persons whose predicate convictions occurred, as here, twelve years prior to the present offense.

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

United States v. Burns · filed 2026-04-20(g)(1)

The parties are correct that all of Burns’s claims are foreclosed. See United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 471-72 (5th Cir. 2024) (rejecting facial challenge), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 2822 (2025); United States v. Schnur, 132 F.4th 863, 866-70 (5th Cir. 2025) (rejecting as-applied challenge); United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 145 (5th Cir. 2013) (rejecting argument that § 922(g)(1) exceeds Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause).

Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by convicted felons withstands Second Amendment and Commerce Clause challenges under binding Eleventh Circuit precedent.

United States v. Mackey · filed 2026-04-24(g)(1)

Here, the district court did not err in convicting Mackey un- der § 922(g) because our binding precedent in Rozier forecloses his Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g), and our binding prece- dent in Wright and Scott foreclose his argument that § 922(g) ex- ceeds Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause.

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

United States v. McIntosh · filed 2026-04-27(g)(1)

McIntosh argues that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). We disagree. As McIntosh acknowledges, his “constitutional challenge is foreclosed by our recent decision in Zherka v. Bondi, 140 F.4th 68 (2d Cir. 2025), which reaffirmed the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) post-Bruen.” United States v. Delgado, 149 F.4th 244, 247 (2d Cir. 2025), cert. denied, No. 25-6732, 2026 WL 642823 (U.S. Mar. 9, 2026). He is therefore entitled to no relief on this basis.

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

United States v. Gaines · filed 2026-05-01(g)(1)

Upon careful review, we conclude that Gaines’s constitutional challenge is unavailing. We have held that section 922(g)(1) is not facially unconstitutional under Bruen.

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

United States v. Smith · filed 2026-05-12(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”. Meacham v. United States, No. 2:22-CV- 00149-JRG, 2025 WL 778168 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 11, 2025). The Court adopts that same reasoning here.

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

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

McCary’s constitutional challenge to sec- tion 922(g)(1) fails.

Facial and as-applied challenges to § 922(g)(1) under Bruen are foreclosed in the Fifth Circuit.

United States v. Tardieff · filed 2026-06-11(g)(1)

He argues that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to him under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). ... The parties are correct that Tardieff’s claims are foreclosed.

Section 922(g)(1)’s ban on firearm possession by felons withstands facial and as-applied Second Amendment challenges and falls within Congress’s Commerce Clause authority.

United States v. Byrd · filed 2026-06-18(g)(1)

Torion Byrd argues that his felon-in-possession conviction, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), violated both the Second Amendment and the Commerce Clause. Circuit precedent forecloses both arguments.

Section 922(g) treats a single act of firearm possession by someone in multiple prohibited classes as one offense; the additional class alone cannot support a separate-felony sentencing enhancement.

United States v. Henderson · filed 2023-12-13(g)

He therefore cannot be subject to a sentencing enhancement based solely on the fact that he falls into more than one class of prohibited persons under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).

When a single count charges multiple § 922(g) prohibited-person categories, one valid category is enough to sustain the indictment.

United States v. Reginald Robinson, Jr. · filed 2025-06-23(g)

Further, with respect to Robinson’s as-applied challenge to § 922(g)(3), where, as here, the defendant is charged in a single count, sustaining any one of the § 922(g) categories supports the indictment and the Court need not address a challenge to another § 922(g) category.

Section 922(g) allows a firearm-possession conviction to stand when any one of its prohibited-person categories applies.

United States v. Principal Springer · filed 2025-06-24(g)

A “conviction can be sustained on any one of the § 922(g) categories” because just one is enough to make the possession illegal.

Section 922(l) prohibits knowingly importing ammunition into the United States unless an authorized exception applies.

United States v. 8,090 Rounds of Various Ammunition (Approximately) · filed 2024-03-14(l)

The Defendant Property was brought into the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(l). Defendant Property is therefore forfeitable under 18 U.S.C. § 924(d).

Section 922(g)(4) prohibits firearm possession by a person committed to a mental institution; a person granted relief from that disability is no longer prohibited under the section.

J.M.P., Jr. v. the State of Texas · filed 2024-03-19(g)(4)

We reverse the trial court’s order and render an order that: (1) states that J.M.P. Jr. qualifies for relief from a firearms disability; (2) declares that J.M.P. Jr. is not a prohibited person under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4); and (3) restores J.M.P. Jr.’s right to ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms and ammunition.

Section 922(g)(1) requires proof that the defendant knew he was a felon; an omitted instruction on that element does not warrant relief on plain-error review without a reasonable probability of a different outcome.

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

Here, we agree with Gibbons that Rehaif errors occurred during the district court proceedings and that those errors were plain. However, Gibbons cannot meet the third prong of plain error review; that is, there is not a reasonable probability that this error affected his substantial rights.

Section 922(g)(1) requires proof that a defendant knew of a prior conviction punishable by more than one year when he possessed the firearm or ammunition.

Tucker v. USA-2255 · filed 2024-08-06(g)(1)

And so, in this case, the Government had the burden to prove that Mr. Tucker knew he belonged to the relevant class of persons barred from possessing a firearm and/or ammunition, in other words, that Mr. Tucker knew he had been convicted of a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment of more than one year when he possessed the firearm and ammunition.

Section 922(g)(1) requires proof that a defendant knew of his felony status when he possessed a firearm; an omission of that element warrants reversal on plain error review only if it affected his substantial rights.

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

Seraphin’s challenges to his indictment and guilty plea, which we review only for plain error since he didn’t raise them below, fail because the record establishes that “the probability is virtually zero” Seraphin would have in fact made a different decision had his indictment complied with Rehaif and he been aware of Rehaif’s requirements.

Section 922(g)(1) requires a defendant to know of a prior felony conviction when possessing a firearm.

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

As detailed above, both the plea agreement and my colloquy with Burden during the course of the plea hearing ensured that Burden understood that one of the elements of his crime was his knowledge that he had previously been convicted of a felony offense.

Section 922(g) requires knowledge of felony status when the defendant possesses a firearm; prior felony convictions and lengthy prison terms can establish that knowledge.

Cobb v. United States · filed 2024-12-12(g)

Cobb’s claim lacks merit because the record contains sufficient evidence that Cobb knew he was a felon when he possessed the firearm. ... Given his prior felony convictions, the length of his sentences, and the fact that he served over six years in prison for his felony convictions, Cobb could not have credibly argued that he did not know he was previously convicted of a felony when he possessed the firearm.

Section 922(g)(1) requires proof that a defendant knew of a qualifying felony conviction, but not that he knew firearm possession was prohibited.

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

Phenix is mistaken as to what the Government must prove on a charge of felon in possession of a firearm in light of Rehaif. The government is not required to prove that a defendant knew he was prohibited from possessing a firearm; it need only prove that a defendant knew that he belonged to the category of persons barred from possessing a firearm.

Section 922(g)(1) requires proof that a person knew of his felony status when he possessed a firearm.

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

These “sworn statements” foreclose any challenge based on Rehaif, because they establish that Perez knew that he was a felon when he (knowingly) possessed the firearm.