700 F.Supp.3d 663
N.D. Ill.2023Background
- Defendant Glen Prince was arrested after an alleged CTA train robbery and recovery of a firearm on Sept. 13, 2021; police tracked his use of a stolen Ventra card prior to arrest.
- Indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (felon in possession) and § 924(e); superseding indictment alleged at least three prior qualifying convictions.
- Less than a month before trial, Prince moved to dismiss the indictment under the Second Amendment following the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision and the Seventh Circuit’s Atkinson remand guidance.
- The government argued felons fall outside the Second Amendment’s textual coverage and that historical analogues (categorical disarmament of “untrustworthy” groups; capital/forfeiture penalties) support § 922(g)(1).
- Prince argued Heller and Bruen do not categorically exclude felons from “the people” and that the government failed Bruen’s required text-and-history showing.
- The court held Prince is included in “the people” and concluded the government failed to identify historical analogues that are both comparably justified and comparably burdensome to § 922(g)(1)’s modern, permanent ban; the indictment was dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Government's Argument | Prince's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether felons are excluded from the Second Amendment’s textual coverage | Heller/Bruen language about “law‑abiding” citizens shows felons are outside “the people” | Heller’s “law‑abiding” language was dicta; felons remain part of “the people” (other constitutional protections persist) | Court: felons are within “the people”; government did not meet its burden to prove exclusion |
| Whether § 922(g)(1) is supported by this nation’s history and tradition under Bruen | Historical practice of disarming untrustworthy groups and severe punishments (death/forfeiture) support modern felon ban by analogy | No historical analogue that is both comparably justified and burdensome; historical exclusions allowed restoration (e.g., oaths) or were punitive and distinct | Court: government failed Bruen’s text‑and‑history test; historical analogues do not justify § 922(g)(1) |
| Whether categorical (non‑individualized) disarmament is historically supported | Legislative tradition authorized categorical exclusions of risky groups | Bruen requires comparably burdensome analogues; permanent modern ban is materially different | Court: history shows categorical exclusions but not ones imposing a permanent, non‑restorable ban comparable to § 922(g)(1) |
| Remedy for constitutional failure | Government implicitly: uphold statute | Prince: dismiss indictment | Court: dismisses indictment; other firearm regulations and criminal prohibitions remain unaffected |
Key Cases Cited
- New York Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (Supreme Court 2022) (adopts text‑and‑history test for Second Amendment challenges)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognizes individual right to possess firearms but notes longstanding prohibitions may be lawful)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (incorporates Second Amendment against the states via Fourteenth Amendment)
- Atkinson v. Garland, 70 F.4th 1018 (7th Cir. 2023) (remands § 922(g)(1) challenge for Bruen‑based historical analysis and lists guiding questions)
- Range v. Attorney General, 69 F.4th 96 (3d Cir. 2023) (holds § 922(g)(1) unconstitutional as applied where government failed historical showing)
- United States v. Jackson, 69 F.4th 495 (8th Cir. 2023) (upholds § 922(g)(1) as supported by historical analogues for persons who showed disrespect for legal norms)
- United States v. Yancey, 621 F.3d 681 (7th Cir. 2010) (describes congressional purpose of § 922(g) to keep guns from presumptively risky people)
- Kanter v. Barr, 919 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2019) (discusses historical disarmament of certain groups and tensions in founding‑era sources)
- Meza‑Rodriguez v. United States, 798 F.3d 664 (7th Cir. 2015) (interprets Heller’s references to “law‑abiding” language as non‑definitional of “the people")
- Medina v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 152 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (considers historical severity of punishments as relevant to who was within arms‑bearing scope at founding)