United States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571

Derrick Durrell Jones pleaded guilty (without a written plea agreement) to possession of a firearm as a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
Jones did not raise his constitutional challenges in the district court; appellate review is therefore for plain error only.
On appeal he argued (1) § 922(g)(1) exceeds Congress’s Commerce Clause power and (2) § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment under the Supreme Court’s Bruen framework; he also asserted a Rule 11 advisory defect.
Fifth Circuit precedent has long upheld § 922(g)(1) under the Commerce Clause; Bruen created a new test for Second Amendment claims and left questions about felon-disarmament unresolved among the circuits.
The Fifth Circuit concluded Jones failed to show clear or obvious error affecting substantial rights and affirmed his conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Commerce Clause validity of § 922(g)(1)	United States: precedent upholds § 922(g)(1) as within Congress’s commerce power.	Jones: statute exceeds Commerce Clause; government must prove more than firearm’s prior movement in interstate commerce.	Foreclosed by circuit precedent (Alcantar); no plain error.
Second Amendment challenge under Bruen	United States: Bruen does not clearly render felon-disarmament unconstitutional; government can rely on historical tradition and existing precedent.	Jones: Bruen’s historical-test requires invalidation of § 922(g)(1) as applied to him; district court should have addressed this.	No plain error; question unsettled in circuit law and other circuits are split, so cannot show clear or obvious error.
Rule 11 advisory claim (failure to advise of statute’s unconstitutionality)	United States: No plain error because law is unsettled and no clear constitutional defect was established.	Jones: district court erred under Rule 11 by failing to advise him that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional post-Bruen.	No plain error; defendant failed to demonstrate a clear error that affected substantial rights.

United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143 (5th Cir. 2013) (recognizing and upholding constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) under Commerce Clause)
New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022) (announcing historical-tradition test for Second Amendment challenges)
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognizing an individual right to possess firearms for lawful purposes)
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (applying Second Amendment to the states via incorporation)
Range v. Attorney General, 69 F.4th 96 (3d Cir. 2023) (post-Bruen holding that a particular felon remained protected by the Second Amendment)
United States v. Cunningham, 70 F.4th 502 (8th Cir. 2023) (post-Bruen upholding longstanding prohibition on felon firearm possession)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain-error review requires a clear or obvious error that affected substantial rights)