The Supreme Court further examined the scope of these rights in Bruen, stating, "when the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct." United States v. Black, CRIMINAL No. 22-133-01, 649 F.Supp.3d 246, 250 (W.D. La. Jan. 6, 2023) (quoting Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2126).
However, many courts have already concluded that felons are not covered by the Second Amendment's plain text. See, e.g., United States v. Black, 649 F.Supp.3d 246, 251 (W.D. La. 2023) (collecting cases); United States v. Sanchez, 646 F.Supp.3d 825, 827 (W.D. Tex. 2022) (“[T]he right to keep and bear arms belongs only to ‘law-abiding' citizens.”); United States v. Ingram, 623 F.Supp.3d 660, 664 (D.S.C. 2022) (“By distinguishing non-law-abiding citizens from law-abiding ones, the dicta in Heller . . . clarifies the bounds of the plain text of the Second Amendment.”);
, 2023 WL 4466507, at *2 (N.D. W.Va. July 11, 2023); United States v. Gil, EP-22-CR-773-DB, 2023 WL 4356067, at *7 (W.D. Tex. July 5, 2023); United States v. Overholser, No. 3:22-CR-35 JD, 2023 WL 4145343, at *2 (N.D. Ind. June 23, 2023); United States v. Evenson, No. CR-23-24-BLG-SPW, 2023 WL 3947828, at *2 (D. Mont. June 12, 2023); United States v. Walker, No. 8:22-CR-291, 2023 WL 3932224, at *5 (D. Neb. June 9, 2023); Costianes, 2023 WL 3550972, at *6; United States v. Parker, No. 22-CR-4072-LTS-KEM, 2023 WL 3596453, at *3 (N.D. Iowa Apr. 25, 2023); United States v. Le, No. 4:23-cr-00014-SHL-HCA, __ F.Supp.3d, 2023 WL 3016297, at *5 (S.D. Iowa Apr. 4, 2023); United States v. Stennerson, No CR 22-139-BLG-SPW, 2023 WL 2214351, at *2 (D. Mont. Feb. 24, 2023); Randall, 656 F.Supp.3d at 856; Posey, 655 F.Supp.3d at 776; United States v. Lewis, 650 F.Supp.3d 1235, 1242 (W.D. Okla. 2023); United States v. Black, 649 F.Supp.3d 246, 253 (W.D. La. 2023); Gilpin v. United States, Crim. No. 2004050-01-CR-C-RK, 2023 WL 387049, at *4 (W.D. Miss. Jan. 3 2023); United States v. Sanchez, 646 F.Supp.3d 825, 828-29 (W.D. Tex. 2022); Fried, 640 F.Supp.3d at 1263; United States v. Seiwert, No. 20-CR-443, 2022 WL 4534605, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 2022); Daniels, 610 F.Supp.3d at 897, rev'd 77 F.4th 337 (5th Cir. 2023).
Whether “the people” for purposes of the Second Amendment includes only lawabiding citizens “is currently subject to a lively debate among federal jurists.” Posey, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22005, at *12 (citing United States v. Black, 649 F.Supp.3d 246, 250-51 (W.D. La. 2023) (collecting cases)). Despite language seemingly linking Second Amendment rights to the concept of “law-abiding,” “responsible,” or “ordinary” citizens
Nevertheless, the Court acknowledges that the federal courts are divided on "whether the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms for all, or rather, only the rights of law-abiding citizens." United States v. Black, 649 F.Supp.3d 246, 251 (W.D. La. 2023). The Court will decline to decide whether the Second Amendment's protections belong to all people or to law-abiding citizens because, assuming the former to be true, Slone's facial challenges fail under the scrutiny of Bruen's second step of historical analysis.
These outliers, two of which are distinguishable as-applied cases, are non-binding and their reasoning and treatment of historical analogues is too narrow and not persuasive.See, e.g., Pruden, 2023 WL 6628606, at *1-5; Okello, 2023 WL 5515828, at *5; United States v. Springer, No. 23-CR-1013-CJW-MAR, 2023 WL 4981583, at *2-5 (N.D. Iowa Aug. 3, 2023); Walker, 2023 WL 3932224, at *3-5; Randall, 2023 WL 3171609, *2-3; United States v. Black, 649 F.Supp.3d 246, 252-53 (D.La. 2023); Lewis, 2023 WL 4604563, at *17; Posey, 2023 WL 1869095, at *5-10; Le, 2023 WL 3016297, at *5; see also Espinoza-Melgar, 2023 WL 5279654, at *9 (citing cases).
(D. Utah Aug. 16, 2023) (joining the "overwhelming majority" of courts upholding Section 922(g)(3) and noting that, "as of August 8, 2023," in 26 of 28 cases, "the district judges concluded that § 922(g)(3) remains constitutional after Bruen"); United States v. Costianes, No. CR JKB-21-0458, 673 F.Supp.3d 756, 760-61 (D. Md. May 18, 2023) (utilizing "Bruen's analysis" and holding that "§ 922(g)(3) is constitutional"); United States v. Le, No. 423CR00014SHLHCA, 669 F.Supp.3d 754, 759-60 (S.D. Iowa Apr. 11, 2023) (finding that because of earlier Eighth Circuit precedent, Bruen did not affect constitutionality of ban against drug users possessing firearms); United States v. Bulltail, No. CR-22-86-BLG-SPW, 2023 WL 5458780, at *2 (D. Mont. Aug. 24, 2023) (same); United States v. Posey, No. 2:22-CR-83 JD, 655 F.Supp.3d 762, 772-73 (N.D. Ind. Feb. 9, 2023) (same in light of Seventh Circuit precedent); United States v. Seiwert, No. 20 CR 443, 2022 WL 4534605 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 2022) (same); United States v. Black, 649 F.Supp.3d 246, 251-52 (W.D. La. 2023) ("The Court finds that the regulation here is consistent with historical regulations on the right to possess firearms and thus passes constitutional muster."); United States v. Sanchez, 646 F.Supp.3d 825, 828 (W.D. Tex. 2022) ("This Court finds that Section 922(g)(3) is constitutional, both because Defendant's conduct is not covered by the Constitution and because the regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."). A notable exception to the foregoing is the Fifth Circuit's decision in United States v. Daniels, 77 F.4th 337 (5th Cir. 2023).
In so holding, this court joins the majority of district courts in upholding the constitutionality of § 922(g)(3). See, e.g., United States v. Wuchter, 2023 WL 4999862, at *5 (N.D. Iowa Aug. 4, 2023); United States v. Lewis, 682 F.Supp. 3d 1038, 1059-60 (S.D. Ala. July 18, 2023); United States v. Black, 649 F.Supp. 3d 246, 251-54 (W.D. La. Apr. 6, 2023); UnitedStates v. Seiwert, 2022 WL 4534605, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 2022). But see United States v. Daniels, 77 F.4th 337, 339-40 (5th Cir. 2023) (finding § 922(g)(3) unconstitutional under Bruen).
s v. Beverly, Criminal No. 2:21CR36, 2023 WL 4466507 (N.D. W. Va. July 11, 2023); United States v. Gil, EP-22-CR-773-DB, 2023 WL 4356067 (W.D. Tex. July 5, 2023); United States v. Overholser, No. 3:22-CR-35 JD, 2023 WL 4145343 (N.D. Ind. June 23, 2023); United States v. Evenson, No. CR-23-24-BLG-SPW, 2023 WL 3947828 (D. Mont. June 12, 2023); United States v. Walker, No. 8:22-CR-291, 2023 WL 3932224 (D. Neb. June 9, 2023); United States v. Costianes, No. JKB-21-0458, 673 F.Supp.3d 756 (D. Md. May 18, 2023); United States v. Parker, No. 22-CR-4072-LTS-KEM, 2023 WL 3596453 (N.D. Iowa Apr. 25, 2023); United States v. Le, No. 4:23-cr-00014-SHL-HCA, 669 F.Supp.3d 754 (S.D. Iowa April 4, 2023); United States v. Stennerson, No CR 22-139-BLG-SPW, 2023 WL 2214351 (D. Mont. Feb. 24, 2023); United States v. Randall, 656 F.Supp.3d 851 (S.D. Iowa Feb. 14, 2023); United States v. Posey, 655 F.Supp.3d 762 (N.D. Ind. Feb. 9, 2023); United States v. Lewis, 650 F.Supp.3d 1235 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 13, 2023); United States v. Black, No. 22-133-01, 2074244401, 2023 WL 122920 (W.D. La. Jan. 6, 2023); Gilpin v. United States, Crim. No. 2004050-01-CR-C-RK, 2023 WL 387049 (W.D. Miss. Jan. 3 2023); United States v. Sanchez, 646 F.Supp.3d 825, 828-29 (W.D. Tex. 2022); Fried v. Garland, 640 F.Supp.3d 1252 (N.D. Fla. 2022); United States v. Seiwert, No. 20-CR-443, 2022 WL 4534605 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 2022); United States v. Doty, No. 5:21-CR-21, 2022 WL 17492260 (N.D. W. Va. Sept. 9, 2022); United States v. Daniels, 610 F.Supp.3d 892, 895-96 (S.D. Miss. 2022) rev'd 77 F.4th 337 (5th Cir. 2023). The court was aware of only two district courts that had thus far determined that § 922(g)(3) is unconstitutional after Bruen.
Another court upheld section 922(g)(3) based on the historical tradition of firearm regulations, citing pre-Bruen Fifth Circuit precedent and post-Bruen district court decisions that already conducted such an analysis. See United States v. Black, ___ F.Supp.3d ___, 2023 WL 122920 (W.D. La. Jan. 6, 2023). Post-Rahimi, another court upheld section 922(g)(3) due to its relevant similarity to colonial-era statutes disarming those considered by the populace to be “dangerous.”