United States v. Kent, 3:24-cr-00072

Delancey Kent was indicted on five federal charges, including being a felon in possession of firearms under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), following multiple drug-related felony convictions.
Kent moved to dismiss Count Four of the indictment, challenging the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) as applied to him, arguing the statute violates his Second Amendment rights based on recent Supreme Court precedent.
The Government opposed the motion, arguing that individuals with criminal histories like Kent’s have traditionally been subject to firearm restrictions for public safety reasons.
The dispute centers on whether Section 922(g)(1) is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, as required by Bruen and subsequent case law.
The Court applied the two-step Second Amendment framework clarified in recent Supreme Court cases, ultimately finding that disarmament of individuals like Kent has strong historical support.

Issue	Kent's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Is § 922(g)(1) unconstitutional as applied to Kent under the Second Amendment?	The statute infringes on Kent’s right to possess firearms; Government must show a tradition of disarming people like him.	Felons with histories like Kent's are 'dangerous'; there is a longstanding tradition of disarming such individuals for public safety.	Applying § 922(g)(1) to Kent is constitutional; motion to dismiss denied.
Does historical tradition support disarmament of those with Kent’s criminal history?	There’s no historical tradition of disarming nonviolent drug offenders.	Founding-era laws punished crimes analogous to Kent’s with severe penalties, including loss of arms.	Historical analogues justify firearm dispossession for drug-related felons like Kent.
Does the absence of a precise historical analogue for drug cases matter?	Only exact historical twins justify modern restrictions.	A representative analogue, not an exact match, is sufficient.	Government’s analogues are sufficient; no need for an exact twin.
Can Second Amendment protections be overcome by public safety concerns?	Second Amendment broadly protects Kent’s rights, regardless of criminal history.	Historical and legal precedent supports limiting rights for those presenting a credible threat.	Second Amendment does not protect Kent’s right to possess firearms in these circumstances.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (modern Second Amendment test requires alignment with historical tradition)
United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (Second Amendment allows firearm restrictions for those posing safety threats)
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (Second Amendment protects individual right to bear arms, but not absolute)
United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458 (framework for as-applied challenges to felon-in-possession statute)