662 F.Supp.3d 935
N.D. Ind.2023Background
- Matthew Rice was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for possessing a firearm after a prior felony conviction; the underlying felony is non‑violent.
- Rice moved to dismiss, arguing § 922(g)(1) is facially and as‑applied unconstitutional under the Second Amendment post‑Bruen.
- The court assumed the indictment facts for the motion and reiterated Rice’s presumption of innocence.
- The court first addressed the as‑applied challenge because a valid as‑applied ruling would foreclose a facial attack.
- The court applied Bruen’s two‑step historical‑analogy framework but relied principally on Seventh Circuit precedent upholding felon‑dispossession laws.
- The court denied the motion to dismiss, holding § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to non‑violent felons and therefore Rice’s facial challenge also fails.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rice) | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| As‑applied: Does § 922(g)(1) violate the Second Amendment when applied to non‑violent felons? | A categorical ban on non‑violent felons is unsupported by historical tradition and thus unconstitutional. | Felon dispossession is a longstanding, presumptively lawful restriction; Seventh Circuit precedent upholds § 922(g)(1). | Denied — as‑applied challenge fails; Kanter and related precedent remain controlling. |
| Bruen’s impact: Did Bruen overturn Heller/McDonald or Seventh Circuit precedent on felon disarmament? | Bruen’s historical test supersedes prior precedents and undermines presumptive‑lawfulness of felon bans. | Bruen reaffirmed Heller/McDonald language about presumptively lawful restrictions and did not disturb circuit precedent. | Denied — Bruen is “in keeping with Heller” and does not displace controlling Seventh Circuit authority. |
| Scope of protection: Are felons part of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment (civic‑virtue theory)? | Rice argues felons remain within the Amendment’s protective ambit; categorical disarmament is not historically supported. | Historical record and precedent support excluding or limiting rights of felons; civic‑virtue theory has historical support. | Assumed without deciding that Rice falls within the Amendment’s ambit, but court found historical analogues justify disarmament. |
| Facial challenge: Is § 922(g)(1) unconstitutional in all applications? | Rice contends no historical tradition permits categorical disarmament of all felons; statute must be invalid on its face. | A facial challenge fails because many applications (e.g., violent or dangerous felons) are historically supported. | Denied — Rice cannot show the statute is unconstitutional in all applications; facial challenge fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (U.S. 2022) (adopts historical‑analogy test for Second Amendment challenges).
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (recognizes an individual right and lists long‑standing prohibitions as presumptively lawful).
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (U.S. 2010) (incorporates Second Amendment against the states and reaffirms Heller’s language).
- Kanter v. Barr, 919 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2019) (upholds § 922(g)(1) as applied to non‑violent felons).
- United States v. Skoien, 614 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (recognizes some categorical limits on firearm possession).
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (U.S. 1987) (facial‑challenge standard: plaintiff must show unconstitutionality in all applications).
- United States v. Rahimi, 59 F.4th 163 (5th Cir. 2023) (addresses civic‑virtue theory and historical analysis in post‑Bruen context).