125 F.4th 725
5th Cir.2025Background
- Taegan Ray Contreras, a convicted felon, was charged with possessing a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- Contreras previously served time and was on supervised release for being a user in possession of a firearm; he was again found with a firearm while on supervised release and in possession of marijuana.
- Contreras moved to dismiss his indictment, arguing that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment, both on its face and as applied to him, relying on the Supreme Court's recent shift in Second Amendment analysis in Bruen.
- The district court denied his motion, distinguishing his case from others where as-applied challenges to § 922(g)(1) succeeded.
- Contreras entered a conditional guilty plea and appealed the denial of his motion, renewing his Second Amendment arguments before the Fifth Circuit.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) de novo and ultimately affirmed his conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Contreras's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 922(g)(1) is facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment | Section 922(g)(1) is an unconstitutional infringement of the right to bear arms | There is historical tradition supporting limitation of gun rights for felons | Facial challenge rejected; statute has valid applications |
| Whether § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to Contreras (user in possession; on supervised release) | No historical analogue for permanent disarmament of persons with analogous predicate offense | Disarmament of felons and those intoxicated has historical support | Application upheld; tradition supports temporary disarmament in analogous cases |
| Whether pre-Bruen precedent bars Second Amendment challenges by felons | Bruen changes the legal paradigm, overruling prior caselaw | Prior precedent forecloses challenge | Bruen applies, overruling prior Fifth Circuit precedent |
| Whether the Second Amendment covers convicted felons | The amendment's text applies to all "the people," including felons | Second Amendment does not protect felons in this context | Second Amendment extends to felons, but regulation can be historically justified |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (facial challenges to statutes require law be unconstitutional in all applications)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (incorporation of Second Amendment; relevant to historical tradition analysis)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (historical severity of felony punishments in founding era)
- Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (history of capital punishment for felonies)
- Bucklew v. Precythe, 587 U.S. 119 (further discussion of capital punishment as punishment for felonies)