United States v. BRICEST
4:25-cr-00010
| S.D. Ind. | Jun 30, 2025Background
- Anthony Bricest Jr. was indicted in the Southern District of Indiana for two counts: possession of a firearm and possession of ammunition by a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- Bricest had a prior felony conviction for Possession of an Altered Firearm and several battery charges involving violence.
- He moved to dismiss both counts, arguing that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, relying on recent Supreme Court decisions.
- The Government opposed, citing longstanding precedent upholding such felon-in-possession prohibitions.
- The court addressed both facial and as-applied constitutional challenges to § 922(g)(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bricest) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) on its face | Section violates Second Amendment rights of all felons | Longstanding precedent upholds restrictions on felons | § 922(g)(1) constitutional on its face |
| Constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) as applied to Bricest | Bricest's felonies were nonviolent or not dangerous | Bricest's offenses involved violence and clear danger | § 922(g)(1) constitutional as applied to Bricest |
| Historical justification for restriction under Bruen/Rahimi | No sufficient historical analogues for prohibiting felons | Sufficient tradition of disarming dangerous/unvirtuous | Sufficient historical support, law fits tradition |
| Impact of Supreme Court’s Bruen and Rahimi cases | These cases require strict historical analogues, none exist here | Bruen/Rahimi allow analogous, not identical, regulation | Supreme Court cases do not bar felon-in-possession prohibitions |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognized individual right to bear arms but noted felon prohibitions are presumptively lawful)
- McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (applied Second Amendment to the states and repeated felon prohibitions are valid)
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) (set new standard for evaluating firearm regulations under the Second Amendment based on historical tradition)
- United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024) (clarified application of history-tradition test, allowed modern analogues to historical regulations)
- United States v. Gay, 98 F.4th 843 (7th Cir. 2024) (upheld § 922(g)(1) as constitutional after Bruen and Rahimi, binding authority for the court)
- Kanter v. Barr, 919 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2019) (noted historical tradition of disarming "unvirtuous" citizens, including felons)
- United States v. Skoien, 614 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2010) (surveyed history showing criminals could be disarmed)