United States v. Diontai Moore, 111 F.4th 266

Diontai Moore, a federal felon, was on supervised release after previous convictions for drug distribution and possession of a firearm by a felon.
While on supervised release, Moore possessed and fired a handgun during a home intrusion, striking one of the intruders.
Moore was charged and pleaded guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which prohibits felons from possessing firearms.
Moore challenged the conviction on Second Amendment grounds, arguing that § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional as applied to him while on supervised release, particularly when used for home self-defense.
The District Court upheld the conviction; Moore appealed to the Third Circuit, raising a question of first impression for the court regarding Second Amendment rights during supervised release.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the Second Amendment protect a felon on supervised release's right to possess a firearm?	Moore argued he retains Second Amendment rights, especially at home for self-defense, while on supervised release.	Government argued historical tradition allows temporary disarmament during sentence supervision.	No, convict on supervised release may be disarmed under history/tradition.
Whether historical analogues justify § 922(g)(1) as applied to supervised releasees.	Moore contended supervised release is unlike 18th-century forfeiture/disarmament laws.	Government pointed to founding-era forfeiture laws that temporarily disarmed convicts.	Founding-era laws justify disarming convicts on supervised release.
Is self-defense in one's home a special case for Second Amendment protection for supervised releasees?	Moore claimed home self-defense is core Second Amendment conduct.	Government countered that prisoners and releasees do not gain full rights at home.	No special exemption; supervised releasees may be disarmed in the home.
May as-applied facts beyond the indictment be considered in constitutional analysis?	Moore argued only the indictment's facts are relevant for as-applied challenges.	Government argued all relevant circumstances (including supervised release status) count.	All relevant facts are considered; status as releasee supports application.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (recognizing core Second Amendment right to possess firearms in the home)
N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (establishes the historical tradition test for gun regulations)
United States v. Rahimi, 144 S. Ct. 1889 (upholding disarmament laws grounded in historical tradition)