United States v. Raymon Doug Risner, 129 F.4th 361

Raymon Risner was indicted on several charges, including conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and firearm offenses based on his involvement in drug trafficking activities in Kentucky between January and November 2022.
A video and evidence obtained from Risner's home connected him to both methamphetamine sales and a firearm.
Risner filed a motion to dismiss the firearm-related charges (felon-in-possession under § 922(g)(1) and possession in furtherance of drug trafficking under § 924(c)(1)(A)), arguing these statutes violate the Second Amendment as interpreted in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen.
The district court denied Risner’s motion; he later pleaded guilty to the conspiracy and firearm-in-furtherance counts as part of a deal allowing him to appeal the adverse constitutional ruling.
On appeal, his challenge was limited by the plea agreement to facial, not as-applied, constitutional challenges to the statutes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Constitutionality of § 922(g)(1)	Felon-in-possession statute violates Second Amendment after Bruen	Statute is facially constitutional; charge dismissed anyway	Risner lacks standing; challenge rejected
Constitutionality of § 924(c)(1)(A)	Statute is ahistorical and inconsistent with Second Amendment protections	Statute fits deeply rooted tradition of disarming criminals	Statute is constitutional on its face

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (recognizes individual right to bear arms but not unlimited; limitation for unlawful purposes)
New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 ( Second Amendment analysis focuses on text and historical tradition)
United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (historical tradition permits disarming dangerous individuals)
United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (sets high bar for facial constitutional challenges)
United States v. Greeno, 679 F.3d 510 (historical precedent for limiting firearms in context of criminal activity)