George Pitsilides v. William Barr, 128 F.4th 203

George Pitsilides was convicted in Pennsylvania in 1998 for first-degree misdemeanors related to illegal bookmaking and pool selling, punishable by up to five years' imprisonment, triggering a federal bar on firearm possession under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
After his conviction, Pitsilides continued to organize illegal gambling activities, leading to later misdemeanor convictions in Virginia for owning a place where illegal gambling was occurring.
In 2019, Pitsilides sued in federal court, seeking a declaratory judgment that § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional as applied to him and did not statutorily apply due to an exemption for "business practice" offenses under § 921(a)(20)(A).
The district court granted summary judgment to the Government, holding both that the convictions did not fit the statutory exemption and that disarmament was constitutional under prior precedent.
Subsequent Supreme Court and Third Circuit precedent (Bruen, Rahimi, Range II) changed the Second Amendment analysis, requiring individualized determinations of "dangerousness" and a focus on historical regulatory principles.
The Third Circuit found the record insufficiently developed to rule on whether Pitsilides poses a current special danger justifying permanent disarmament and remanded for further fact-finding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does § 922(g)(1) apply, or is Pitsilides exempt under § 921(a)(20)(A)?	Conviction relates to business practices/business competition, thus falls under statutory carveout.	Gambling offenses do not affect competition/consumers, so not exempt.	Offenses do not fit the business practices carveout; § 922(g)(1) applies.
Constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) as applied	No historical tradition or current risk justifying permanent disarmament; no credible threat posed.	Bookmaking and related crimes are serious and justify categorical prohibition.	Remanded: More factual development needed to assess current dangerousness under new precedent.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms)
New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) (established historical tradition test for firearm regulation under the Second Amendment)
United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024) (clarified and refined Bruen's methodology for evaluating gun restrictions)
United States v. Bullock, 123 F.4th 183 (5th Cir. 2024) (legislatures may bar dangerous people from possessing guns)
United States v. Williams, 113 F.4th 637 (6th Cir. 2024) (history supports disarming dangerous individuals)
United States v. Jackson, 110 F.4th 1120 (8th Cir. 2024) (legislative authority to disarm categories of dangerous persons)