United States v. Ware, 673 F.Supp.3d 947

Defendant Jermel Ware pleaded guilty in 2019 to Illinois Unlawful Possession of a Weapon by a Felon (a felony) and was later indicted in federal court under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for felon-in-possession.
Ware moved to dismiss the federal indictment, arguing § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment under the Supreme Court’s Bruen historical-tradition framework.
The government opposed, arguing felons are not within the protected class or that longstanding historical analogues justify § 922(g)(1); the parties submitted supplemental briefs and argued at hearing.
The Court first determined whether felons fall within “the people” of the Second Amendment and concluded Ware’s possession is covered by the Amendment’s plain text (felons are not categorically excluded).
The Court then applied Bruen’s historical-analogue test and found the government met its burden by identifying historical practices (e.g., colonial and Revolutionary-era disarmament of those who repudiated the rule of law, surety statutes, and the historical treatment of felons) analogous to modern felon-disarmament laws.
Conclusion: the Court denied Ware’s motion to dismiss, holding § 922(g)(1) is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ware (a felon) is within the Second Amendment’s “the people” so his conduct is textually protected	Ware: felons are among “the people” and his possession is covered	Gov: “the people” should be limited to law‑abiding, responsible persons	Court: Felons are not categorically excluded; Ware’s conduct is covered by the Amendment’s text
Whether the government can justify § 922(g)(1) under Bruen’s historical‑tradition test	Ware: government cannot identify sufficiently analogous historical regulations	Gov: historical analogues exist (colonial/Revolutionary disarmament, surety statutes, historical punishments for felons)	Court: Government met its burden; identified relevant historical analogues and metrics of “how and why” the right was burdened
Whether § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to Ware	Ware: statute infringes his Second Amendment rights and indictment should be dismissed	Gov: § 922(g)(1) is a longstanding, permissible restriction on felons’ firearm possession	Court: Denied motion; § 922(g)(1) upheld as consistent with historical tradition

New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022) (adopts historical‑tradition test for firearms regulations)
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (Second Amendment protects individual right to possess and carry weapons for self‑defense)
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (incorporation of Second Amendment against the states)
United States v. Skoien, 614 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2010) (discusses longstanding prohibitions on felons possessing firearms)
United States v. Meza‑Rodriguez, 798 F.3d 664 (7th Cir. 2015) (uses identical phrasing across Bill of Rights to interpret “the people”)
Kanter v. Barr, 919 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2019) (addressing whether felons are categorically excluded from Second Amendment protections)