United States v. McCuin
1:24-cr-00038
S.D. Miss.May 1, 2025Background
- Jesse Ray McCuin, a convicted felon with prior violent and drug-related offenses, was indicted on one count under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for possession of a firearm as a felon.
- McCuin moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing § 922(g)(1) violated the Second Amendment (as interpreted in light of recent Supreme Court decisions), the Commerce Clause, and the Equal Protection component of the Fifth Amendment.
- The government maintained that the statute is constitutional as-applied to McCuin, given his predicate offenses, and also opposed McCuin’s procedural claims.
- McCuin also sought to suppress statements from a custodial interview, arguing he had unequivocally invoked his right to counsel.
- The government conceded McCuin requested counsel during the interview but contested suppression of all statements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| § 922(g)(1) – Second Amendment | Statute violates Second Amendment (Bruen/Rahimi cases) | Disarming felons with violent/dangerous priors comports with history/tradition | Government met burden; McCuin’s challenge fails |
| § 922(g)(1) – Commerce Clause | Insufficient nexus to interstate commerce (Lopez) | Statute remains valid under binding Fifth Circuit precedent | Fifth Circuit precedent forecloses the Commerce Clause attack |
| § 922(g)(1) – Equal Protection | Unequal treatment due to state conviction disparities | Statute punishes by uniform federal standard | Different state treatments do not violate equal protection |
| Suppression of Post-Miranda Statements | Questioning continued after unequivocal request for counsel | Only certain statements should be suppressed | All post-invocation statements inadmissible; suppression granted |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (individual right to possess arms, subject to certain lawful restrictions)
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (current Second Amendment framework focuses on history and tradition)
- United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (Second Amendment applies, but restrictions upheld for dangerousness)
- United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (Commerce Clause—activity must substantially affect interstate commerce)
- Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563 (minimal nexus to interstate commerce suffices for § 922(g)(1))
- Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (equal protection applies to federal government through Fifth Amendment)
- Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (Miranda rights—unambiguous request for counsel requires questioning to cease)
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (once counsel requested, interrogation must stop until counsel is present)