Tony Wilkinson pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). His criminal history is extensive, including felony convictions for burglary and two counts of drug trafficking, alongside numerous misdemeanors for driving under the influence, fleeing police, and reckless driving. After the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, Wilkinson argued that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to him because he was not dangerous. Following the Sixth Circuit's prior ruling in United States v. Williams, which clarified that dangerous felons may be disarmed, Wilkinson sought a remand to prove his non-dangerousness. The district court had denied his motion to dismiss before Williams was decided, and Wilkinson appealed the denial of that motion while entering a guilty plea.
The court applied the historical tradition test established in Bruen and clarified in United States v. Rahimi, which requires that firearm regulations be consistent with the nation's history and tradition. Relying on its prior holding in United States v. Williams, the court affirmed that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to dangerous people. The court explained that while individuals have a right to bear arms, the government may disarm those it believes are dangerous, provided there is an opportunity for an individualized showing of non-dangerousness. However, the court noted that when a defendant's dangerousness is self-evident, a remand is unnecessary. The court analyzed Wilkinson's record holistically, looking beyond just his felony convictions to his entire criminal history. It categorized burglary and drug trafficking as offenses that, while not strictly crimes against the person, pose a significant threat of danger. The court highlighted that Wilkinson's record includes an average of one criminal conviction a year since age eighteen, including repeated DUIs and fleeing police while intoxicated. The court found that this pattern demonstrates Wilkinson is dangerous enough to be constitutionally disarmed, stating that the record evidence would have indisputably led the district court to that conclusion. Consequently, the court saw no need to remand the case for further proceedings.
Wilkinson's conviction stands without further judicial review or sentence modification. The decision reinforces that defendants with extensive criminal histories involving drug trafficking, burglary, and repeated dangerous conduct like DUIs and fleeing police cannot claim a right to bear arms. It establishes that when the record clearly shows a defendant is dangerous, courts will affirm convictions under § 922(g)(1) without ordering a remand for a new dangerousness hearing.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download