United States v. Wilson
2:23-cr-20081
W.D. Tenn.Nov 7, 2023Background:
- Roosevelt Wilson indicted on three counts: (1) felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)); (2) unlawful importation/possession of 25 machine-gun conversion devices (26 U.S.C. §§ 5844, 5861(k)); and (3) unlawful possession of machine guns (18 U.S.C. § 922(o)).
- Wilson has prior felony convictions (drug trafficking, possession of a weapon as a felon, failure to pay child support).
- Wilson moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing (a) §§ 922(g)(1), 922(o), and the NFA import/special tax provisions are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment post-Bruen, and (b) an as-applied challenge because his convictions allegedly are not historical analogs that would justify disarmament.
- The Government opposed, arguing Bruen’s historical-tradition test does not invalidate those statutes and that machine-gun conversion devices are dangerous/unusual and historically regulable.
- The court followed Sixth Circuit precedent and post-Bruen historical-analysis authorities, and denied Wilson’s motion to dismiss in full.
Issues:
| Issue | Gov't Argument | Wilson's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Facial challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) | § 922(g)(1) is constitutional; felons are not among “the people” protected | § 922(g)(1) is facially unconstitutional under Bruen | Denied — Sixth Circuit precedent (Carey) controls; Second Amendment text covers law‑abiding people, not felons |
| 2. As‑applied challenge to § 922(g)(1) (Wilson’s nonviolent felonies) | Historical tradition permits disarming classes judged dangerous, including nonviolent offenders | Wilson’s convictions are not historical analogs (not rebellion-level crimes) | Denied — historical analogs and common-law tradition support disarming those deemed untrustworthy/dangerous |
| 3. Challenge to machine‑gun statutes (§ 922(o), 26 U.S.C. §§ 5844, 5861(k)) | Conversion devices are prohibited and are unusual/dangerous; regulation consistent with Heller/Bruen | Machine guns (or conversion devices) are protected by Second Amendment | Denied — Sixth Circuit law (Hamblen) and post‑Bruen analyses uphold regulation of unregistered/machine‑gun devices |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (individual right to possess handgun for self-defense; recognized longstanding prohibitions including felons)
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (adopted historical‑tradition test for Second Amendment challenges)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (Second Amendment applicable to states)
- United States v. Carey, 602 F.3d 738 (6th Cir.) (upholding constitutionality of § 922(g)(1))
- Hamblen v. United States, 591 F.3d 471 (6th Cir.) (upholding regulation of unregistered machine guns)
- Stimmel v. Sessions, 879 F.3d 198 (6th Cir.) (upholding § 922(g)(9) and recognizing felon‑disarmament authority)