United States v. Tahjair Dorsey, 105 F.4th 526

Tahjair Dorsey was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) after being found with a stolen handgun while on parole for a prior gun-related felony.
Dorsey pleaded guilty to the federal charge and did not challenge the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) under the Second Amendment in district court.
After his conviction, the Third Circuit en banc issued a significant Second Amendment decision in Range v. Attorney General, which addressed as-applied challenges to § 922(g)(1).
Dorsey appealed, arguing for the first time that his conviction under § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional as applied to him, relying on Range and Bruen.
The Third Circuit reviewed the case for plain error because the constitutional challenge was not raised below.
The court ultimately held that any error was not “plain” due to meaningful factual differences from Range and the narrow factual nature of the Range holding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) unconstitutional as applied to Dorsey under the Second Amendment?	Dorsey: Range dictates that § 922(g)(1) cannot be applied to him since he has only one, non-violent felony and was not dangerous.	Government: Range is narrow; Dorsey's prior offense was a recent firearm felony, and he was on parole, distinguishing him from Range.	The court held any constitutional error was not plain; conviction affirmed.
Can the court reverse under the plain error standard?	Dorsey: The error was clear in light of Range and Bruen.	Government: The error, if any, was not plain due to material factual differences and unsettled law.	The court found no plain error; no reversal warranted.
Does Bruen or Range control the application of § 922(g)(1) here?	Dorsey: Range’s reasoning broadly precludes disarmament of non-dangerous felons.	Government: Range is fact-specific and does not extend to recent, firearm-related felonies or parolees.	The court agrees the law is unsettled; Range does not clearly control this case.
Should Dorsey be treated as similarly situated to Range?	Dorsey: All non-dangerous, non-violent felons should be treated alike.	Government: Dorsey’s recent, firearms-related conviction and parole status make his case distinct.	Court holds differences are significant; Range’s protection does not clearly apply.

United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (plain error review standard in criminal appeals)
New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (redefined Second Amendment analysis to historical tradition framework)
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (established individual right to possess firearms)