United States v. Black

4 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Campbell

    1:22-cr-159-LG-RPM-1 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 4, 2023)   Cited 2 times

    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.”

  2. United States v. Lewis

    682 F. Supp. 3d 1038 (S.D. Ala. 2023)   Cited 5 times
    Noting that “ number of sister courts have upheld the constitutionality of Section 922(g) postBruen” and then reaching the same conclusion” (citing cases including Walker)

    United States v. Daniels, 610 F. Supp. 3d 892 (S.D. Miss. 2022); United States v. Beverly, 2023 WL 4466507 (N.D. W. Va. 2023); United States v. Ray, 2023 WL 4378152 (S.D.W. Va. 2023); United States v. Gil, 2023 WL 4356067 (W.D. Tex. 2023) (Briones, J.); United States v. Walker, 2023 WL 3932224 (D. Neb. 2023); United States v. Costianes, 2023 WL 3550972 (D. Md. 2023); United States v. Le, 2023 WL 3016297 (S.D. Iowa 2023) (Locher, J.); United States v. Stennerson, 2023 WL 2214351 (D. Mont. 2023); United States v. Randall, 2023 WL 3171609 (S.D. Iowa 2023) (Rose, J.); United States v. Posey, 2023 WL 1869095 (N.D. Ind. 2023); United States v. Lewis, 2023 WL 187582 (W.D. Okla. 2023); United States v. Black, 2023 WL 122920 (W.D. La. 2023); United States v. Gilpin, 2023 WL 387049 (W.D. Mo. 2023); United States v. Sanchez, 2022 WL 17815116 (W.D. Tex. 2022) (Albright, J.); Fried v. Garland, 2022 WL 16731233 (N.D. Fla. 2022); United States v. Harper, 2022 WL 8288406 (N.D. Iowa), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 4595060 (N.D. Iowa 2022); United States v. Seiwert, 2022 WL 4534605 (N.D. Ill. 2022). The government argues that Second Amendment rights may be properly restricted if a group is deemed not "law-abiding," not "trustworthy," or not "virtuous." (Doc. 21 at 23-25).

  3. United States v. Hart

    4:22-00114-CR-W-HFS (W.D. Mo. Jun. 6, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    See, e.g., United States v. Costianes, 2023 WL 3550972 (D. Md. May 18, 2023); United States v. Le, 2023 WL 3016297 (S.D. Iowa Apr. 11, 2023); United States v. Stennerson, 2023 WL 2214351, at *2 (D. Mont. Feb. 24, 2023); United States v. Posey, 2023 WL 1869095, at *9 (N.D. Ind. Feb. 9, 2023); United States v. Lewis, 2023 WL 187582, at *5 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 13, 2023); United States v. Black, 2023 WL 122920, at *4 (W.D. La. Jan. 6, 2023); United States v. Sanchez, 2022 WL 17815116, at *3-4 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 19, 2022); Fried v. Garland, 2022 WL 16731233, at *8 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 4, 2022); United States v. Seiwert, 2022 WL 4534605, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 2022); United States v. Daniels, 2022 WL 2654232, at *4 (S.D.Miss. July 8, 2022). But see United States v. Connelly, 2023 WL 2806324, at *12 (W.D. Tex. April 6, 2023) (finding § 922(g)(3) unconstitutional), appeal filed, No. 23-5031 (5th Cir. May 4, 2023); United States v. Harrison, 2023 WL 1771138, at *24-25 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 3, 2023) (finding § 922(g)(3) unconstitutional as applied), appeal filed, No. 23-6028 (10th Cir. Mar. 3, 2023).

  4. United States v. Rowson

    652 F. Supp. 3d 436 (S.D.N.Y. 2023)   Cited 27 times
    Rejecting a similar argument

    constitutional facially and as-applied); United States v. Carrero, No. 22 Cr. 0030 (RHC), 635 F.Supp.3d 1210, 1212-15 (D. Utah Oct. 14, 2022) (same; Bruen did not supersede Tenth Circuit precedent holding § 922(g)(1) constitutional); United States v. Butts, No. Cr. 22 Cr. 33 (DWM), 637 F.Supp.3d 1134, 1137-38 (D. Mont. Oct. 31, 2022) (§ 922(g)(1) constitutional); and United States v. Garrett, No. 18 CR 880, 650 F.Supp.3d 638, 640-42 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 11, 2023) (same, noting that 58 other decisions had upheld § 922(n) since Bruen as of the Government opposition brief). For challenges to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which prohibits the possession by unlawful "user[s] of or addict[s] to any controlled substance," see United States v. Daniels, No. 22 Cr. 58 (LG), 610 F.Supp.3d 892, 896-97 (S.D. Miss. July 8, 2022) (§ 922(g)(3) constitutional); United States v. Sanchez, No. 21 Cr. 0213 (ADA), 646 F.Supp.3d 825, 828-29 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 19, 2022) (same); and United States v. Black, No. 22 Cr. 133-01, 649 F.Supp.3d 246, 252-54 (W.D. La. Jan. 6, 2023) (same).For challenges to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits persons subject to certain court-issued restraining orders from possessing a firearm, see United States v. Haas, No. 22-5054, 2022 WL 15048667, at *2 & n.1 (10th Cir. Oct. 27, 2022) (refuting argument that § 922(g)(8) was unconstitutional, but not specifically deciding question); and Kays, 624 F.Supp.3d at 1266-68 (§ 922(g)(8) constitutional after Bruen).