United States v. Gipson

8 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Dominique

    CRIMINAL 24-92 (W.D. La. Jun. 18, 2024)

    The Court concludes that Dominique, who, unlike Rahimi and Daniels, is a convicted felon, is not facially protected by the Second Amendment. See also United States v. Gipson, 2024 WL 150339, *4 (W.D. La. Jan. 12, 2024) (holding that convicted felons are not included within the protection of “the people”); United States v. Martin, 2024 WL 129337, *6 (W.D. La. Jan. 11, 2024) (collecting cases). Because the Defendant failed to satisfy the first step of Bruen, his motion must be denied.

  2. United States v. Greer

    Criminal 24-20 (W.D. La. Apr. 12, 2024)

    The Court concludes that Greer, who, unlike Rahimi and Daniels, is a convicted felon, is not facially protected by the Second Amendment. See also United States v. Gipson, 2024 WL 150339, *4 (W.D. La. Jan. 12, 2024) (holding that convicted felons are not included within the protection of "the people"); United States v. Martin, 2024 WL 129337, *6 (W.D. La. Jan. 11, 2024) (collecting cases). Because the Defendant failed to satisfy the first step of Bruen, his motion must be denied.

  3. United States v. Henderson

    CRIMINAL 24-19 (W.D. La. Mar. 18, 2024)

    The Court concludes that Henderson, who, unlike Rahimi and Daniels, is a convicted felon, is not facially protected by the Second Amendment. See also United States v. Gipson, 2024 WL 150339, *4 (W.D. La. Jan. 12, 2024) (holding that convicted felons are not included within the protection of “the people”); United States v. Martin, 2024 WL 129337, *6 (W.D. La. Jan. 11, 2024) (collecting cases). Because the Defendant failed to satisfy the first step of Bruen, his motion must be denied.

  4. United States v. Latham

    CRIMINAL 24-21 (W.D. La. Mar. 18, 2024)

    The Court concludes that Latham, who, unlike Rahimi and Daniels, is a convicted felon, is not facially protected by the Second Amendment. See also United States v. Gipson, 2024 WL 150339, *4 (W.D. La. Jan. 12, 2024) (holding that convicted felons are not included within the protection of “the people”); United States v. Martin, 2024 WL 129337, *6 (W.D. La. Jan. 11, 2024) (collecting cases). Because the Defendant failed to satisfy the first step of Bruen, his motion must be denied.

  5. United States v. Carter

    CRIMINAL 23-280 (W.D. La. Mar. 15, 2024)

    The Court concludes that Carter, who, unlike Rahimi and Daniels, is a convicted felon, is not facially protected by the Second Amendment. See also United States v. Gipson, 2024 WL 150339, *4 (W.D. La. Jan. 12, 2024) (holding that convicted felons are not included within the protection of “the people”); United States v. Martin, 2024 WL 129337, *6 (W.D. La. Jan. 11, 2024) (collecting cases). Because the Defendant failed to satisfy the first step of Bruen, his motion must be denied.

  6. United States v. Metcalf

    CRIMINAL 23-281 (W.D. La. Mar. 15, 2024)

    The Court concludes that Metcalf, who, unlike Rahimi and Daniels, is a convicted felon, is not facially protected by the Second Amendment. See also United States v. Gipson, 2024 WL 150339, *4 (W.D. La. Jan. 12, 2024) (holding that convicted felons are not included within the protection of “the people”); United States v. Martin, 2024 WL 129337, *6 (W.D. La. Jan. 11, 2024) (collecting cases). Because the Defendant failed to satisfy the first step of Bruen, his motion must be denied.

  7. United States v. Lee

    Criminal 22-195 (W.D. La. Feb. 21, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    The Court concludes that Lee, who, unlike Rahimi and Daniels, is a convicted felon, is not facially protected by the Second Amendment. See also United States v. Gipson, 2024 WL 150339, *4 (W.D. La. Jan. 12, 2024) (holding that convicted felons are not included within the protection of "the people"); United States v. Martin, 2024 WL 129337, *6 (W.D. La. Jan. 11, 2024) (collecting cases). Because the Defendant failed to satisfy the first step of Bruen, his motion must be denied.

  8. United States v. Underwood

    CRIMINAL 23-49 (W.D. La. Jan. 30, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    The Court concludes that Underwood and Cawthorne, who, unlike Rahimi and Daniels, are convicted felons are not facially protected by the Second Amendment. See also United States v. Gipson, 2024 WL 150339, *4 (W.D. La. Jan. 12, 2024) (holding that convicted felons are not included within the protection of “the people”); United States v. Martin, 2024 WL 129337, *6 (W.D. La. Jan. 11, 2024) (collecting cases). Because the Defendants failed to satisfy the first step of Bruen, their motion must be denied.