734 F.Supp.3d 806
N.D. Ill.2024Background
- Defendant Raymond Head was charged in federal court with unlawful firearm possession after being convicted of multiple felonies under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- Police found Head in possession of a firearm after responding to a 911 call; his criminal record includes violent and firearm-related felonies.
- Head moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, citing the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision.
- The government argued the statute is constitutional, pointing to historical traditions and the majority of recent court decisions upholding the law after Bruen.
- The court treated Head’s motion as raising both facial and as-applied challenges, conducted a full analysis under the post-Bruen legal framework, and denied the motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Head's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 922(g)(1) violate the Second Amendment on its face? | The statute unlawfully denies all felons, including non-violent ones, their core Second Amendment rights; there is no historical tradition justifying such a broad ban. | The ban is consistent with historic tradition of disarming citizens deemed untrustworthy or law-breaking; there are historical analogues disarming groups and felons. | No. The statute is constitutional on its face under Bruen’s “text and history” framework. |
| Are felons categorically excluded from “the people” protected by the Second Amendment? | No – “the people” includes all Americans, including felons, as in other amendments (First, Fourth). | Yes – only "law-abiding, responsible citizens" are protected; felons fall outside the Second Amendment’s scope. | No categorical exclusion; “the people” includes felons for Second Amendment purposes. |
| Does history support firearm dispossession of felons? | No Founding-era direct analogue exists; major disarmament laws targeted different groups and for other justifications. | Relevant analogues exist—English, colonial, and early U.S. laws disarmed groups deemed untrustworthy or law-breaking; historical punishments for felonies support dispossession. | Yes. Historical tradition supports legislative authority to disarm those who are deemed untrustworthy or lawbreaking. |
| Is § 922(g)(1) unconstitutional as applied to Head? | Statute is overbroad and lacks support as applied to individual circumstances like Head's. | No ground for as-applied challenge—no historical basis for individual carve-outs for Head’s type of convictions. | No. Even if as-applied challenges are allowed, Head’s circumstances do not warrant relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (right to bear arms not unlimited; longstanding felon prohibitions are valid)
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) (set new "text and history" framework for Second Amendment cases)
- United States v. Jackson, 69 F.4th 495 (8th Cir. 2023) (upheld § 922(g)(1) under Bruen)
- Atkinson v. Garland, 70 F.4th 1018 (7th Cir. 2023) (remanded for full historical analysis of felon dispossession post-Bruen)
- United States v. Gay, 98 F.4th 843 (7th Cir. 2024) (felons on parole not “law-abiding, responsible citizens” protected by Second Amendment)