United States v. Jackson, 138 F.4th 1244

Barry Jackson, previously convicted of two separate misdemeanor domestic violence offenses, pleaded guilty to unlawfully possessing firearms under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9).
Jackson was stopped after firing gunshots at another vehicle; police found two handguns in a child's backpack in his car.
During Jackson’s arrest on the federal charge, three additional firearms, including a pistol with a large-capacity magazine, were found in his home.
Jackson challenged the constitutionality of § 922(g)(9) under the Second Amendment, both facially and as applied.
The district court denied Jackson's constitutional challenge, treated all firearm possession incidents as relevant conduct, and sentenced him to 72 months.
On appeal, Jackson disputed both his conviction and sentence, arguing unconstitutional application of the statute and improper sentencing enhancements.

Issue	Jackson's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Constitutionality of § 922(g)(9) under Second Amendment	Argues statute is facially unconstitutional because there is no historical tradition of disarming misdemeanants	Statute is consistent with historical tradition of disarming those posing a risk of violence, as demonstrated in precedent	Statute is constitutional as applied; consistent with Supreme Court and 10th Circuit precedent
Proper application of Sentencing Guidelines (relevant conduct)	Possession of additional firearms on arrest date should not count as relevant conduct; events too separated in time	Possessing firearms on arrest date was part of same course of conduct and should be counted for sentencing	District court did not err; relevant conduct determination affirmed
Reasonableness of sentence (procedural)	Sentence based on incorrect Guidelines range due to improper relevant conduct finding	Sentence calculation properly included relevant conduct and enhancements	Sentence was procedurally reasonable
Reasonableness of sentence (substantive)	Resulting sentence went beyond what would be recommended if Guidelines calculated correctly	Sentence falls within properly-calculated Guidelines range	Sentence is substantively reasonable

United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024) (upheld firearm prohibition for those found to pose a credible threat under domestic violence restraining orders)
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognized individual Second Amendment right, but not unlimited)
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (applied Second Amendment rights to the states)
New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) (Second Amendment scope determined by text and historical tradition)
United States v. Rogers, 371 F.3d 1225 (10th Cir. 2004) (analyzed bases for firearm prohibitions under domestic violence laws)
Voisine v. United States, 579 U.S. 686 (2016) (discussed effectiveness of laws targeting domestic violence misdemeanants)
United States v. Hayes, 555 U.S. 415 (2009) (addressed loopholes allowing abusers to access firearms)
United States v. Castleman, 572 U.S. 157 (2014) (noted dangers of firearms in escalating domestic violence)