United States v. Price, 656 F.Supp.3d 772

Defendant Edward Price has six prior felony convictions (three narcotics-related; three for failing to comply with sex-offender registration stemming from a juvenile adjudication).
On Jan. 3, 2021 Chicago police found a loaded firearm in Price's sweatshirt pocket; a federal grand jury indicted him under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
Price moved to dismiss (Dec. 22, 2022), arguing § 922(g)(1) is facially and as-applied unconstitutional under Bruen because the government cannot show a historical tradition of disarming nonviolent felons.
Numerous similar post-Bruen challenges have been filed nationally; most district courts (and several circuits) have upheld § 922(g)(1) as constitutional.
The court concluded that felons are not "law-abiding" persons within the Second Amendment’s plain text, so the analytical inquiry under Bruen’s historical-tradition step is unnecessary and denied the motion to dismiss.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 922(g)(1) is facially and as-applied unconstitutional post-Bruen	Price: Bruen requires the government to show historical tradition; it cannot do so for nonviolent felons	Gov: Convicted felons are not "law-abiding" and thus fall outside the Amendment’s text; longstanding felon-dispossession laws are presumptively lawful	Denied: Felons are excluded from the Amendment’s textual protection; § 922(g)(1) constitutional on its face and as-applied to Price
Whether courts must reach Bruen’s historical-tradition test here	Price: Court must apply step-two and find historical analogues lacking	Gov: No need to reach history because the Amendment’s text excludes felons	Held: No need to apply historical-tradition step once the text excludes felons
Whether individualized dangerousness assessments are required before disarming felons	Price: Statutory ban should be assessed with individualized inquiries	Gov: Precedent rejects a highly individualized approach; executive process is better suited	Held: Court rejects individualized requirement, following Seventh Circuit precedent

New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022) (articulates the text-and-history framework for Second Amendment challenges)
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognizes an individual right to bear arms but notes longstanding prohibitions, including felon dispossession)
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (applies Heller to the states and reiterates that longstanding regulations, including felon bans, are not cast into doubt)
Kanter v. Barr, 919 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2019) (upholds § 922(g)(1) as presumptively lawful; rejects individualized dangerousness requirement)
United States v. Skoien, 614 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2010) (supports categorical limits on firearm possession for certain classes of persons)
Range v. Att'y Gen., 53 F.4th 262 (3d Cir. 2022) (post-Bruen decision upholding § 922(g)(1))
United States v. Williams, 616 F.3d 685 (7th Cir. 2010) (upholding § 922(g)(1) categorical ban)