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.”
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).
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).
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).