United States v. YOUNG, 639 F.Supp.3d 515

Background

Defendant Darren Young was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for possessing eight rounds of 9mm ammunition on Nov. 9, 2021; he has four prior Pennsylvania felony drug convictions.
After Bruen issued (New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen), Defendant moved to dismiss § 922(g)(1) as facially unconstitutional and as-applied to him, arguing Bruen confirms an individual right to carry that defeats the felon‑possession ban.
The Government opposed, arguing Bruen did not disturb Heller/McDonald dicta that felon‑dispossession statutes are presumptively lawful and that historical tradition supports § 922(g)(1).
The court reviewed Supreme Court precedent (Heller, McDonald, Bruen), Third Circuit rulings (Marzzarella, Barton, Binderup, Holloway, Folajtar, Boyd), and post‑Bruen district decisions.
The court held Bruen altered the analytical framework but did not undermine the longstanding view that felons may be excluded from § 922 protections; it denied the motion to dismiss both facially and as‑applied.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Government)	Defendant's Argument (Young)	Held
Facial validity of § 922(g)(1) under Bruen	§ 922(g)(1) is consistent with the Second Amendment because felon dispossession is a longstanding regulatory tradition	Bruen requires historical‑tradition proof and shows individual right to carry; § 922(g)(1) is therefore unconstitutional	Denied: Bruen did not displace Heller/McDonald dicta that felon bans are presumptively lawful; historical tradition supports § 922(g)(1)
Whether Bruen’s textual/historical test upends prior two‑step approach	Bruen preserves Heller’s statement that felon bans are longstanding; government need only show consistency with historical tradition if the plain text applies	Bruen’s rejection of means‑end scrutiny requires reexamination and favors dismissal	Held: Bruen changes the test but its dicta and concurrences leave intact the legitimacy of longstanding felon dispossession statutes
As‑applied challenge by a felon with non‑violent drug convictions	Even if government bears the historical burden post‑Bruen, Young’s drug‑trafficking felonies place him outside the Second Amendment’s protection	Young argues he is a “person” protected and that historical tradition does not support blanket bans as applied to him	Denied: Court finds Young’s felony history fits within historically barred classes; he failed to show facts distinguishing him from those historically disarmed
Ammunition vs firearm possession distinction	Government and precedent treat ammunition possession by felons as covered by the same tradition and regulation as firearms	Young argues distinction is immaterial but attempts to use it to narrow the scope of § 922(g)(1)	Denied: Court treats ammunition possession as governed by the same historical regulatory tradition as firearms possession

Key Cases Cited

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognizes individual right to possess arms at home but states dicta that felon dispossession is permissible)
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (incorporates Second Amendment against the states and reiterates Heller’s statement on felon bans)
New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022) (adopts a text‑and‑history test for gun regulations and rejects means‑end scrutiny)
United States v. Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85 (3d Cir. 2010) (applies a two‑step framework to Second Amendment challenges and considers whether challenged conduct falls within the Amendment)
United States v. Barton, 633 F.3d 168 (3d Cir. 2011) (presumes felon dispossession statutes regulate unprotected conduct and details as‑applied analysis)
Binderup v. Attorney General, 836 F.3d 336 (3d Cir. 2016) (en banc) (allows as‑applied challenges and identifies factors to show a conviction is not a historically disqualifying serious offense)
Holloway v. Attorney General, 948 F.3d 164 (3d Cir. 2020) (applies Binderup factors and finds certain convictions exclude Second Amendment protection)
Folajtar v. Attorney General, 980 F.3d 897 (3d Cir. 2020) (holds certain federal felony convictions place a defendant outside Second Amendment protection)
United States v. Boyd, 999 F.3d 171 (3d Cir. 2021) (applies historical analysis and burden‑shifting in as‑applied challenges involving domestic‑violence restrictions)
United States v. Bena, 664 F.3d 1180 (8th Cir. 2011) (discusses historical regulation of firearms and ammunition in relation to felon bans)
United States v. Jimenez, 895 F.3d 228 (2d Cir. 2018) (upholds § 922(g)‑style prohibitions as applied to certain categories, including ammunition)
Kanter v. Barr, 919 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2019) (discusses historical regulation and scope of disarmament for dangerous persons)