Background
Nicolas Garrett was indicted for being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm under 18 United States Code Sections 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8). He moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that Section 922(g)(1) violated the Second Amendment both facially and as applied to him. The district court denied the motion to dismiss, and Garrett subsequently pled guilty to the charges before appealing the denial of his motion.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the constitutionality of the statute de novo. It concluded that the district court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss because existing precedent forecloses Garrett’s challenges. The court cited United States versus Cunningham and United States versus Jackson, noting that the longstanding prohibition on possession of firearms by felons is constitutional and that there is no need for felony-by-felony litigation regarding the constitutionality of the statute. The court also declined to reconsider the precedent in Jackson, stating that only the en banc court can overrule a prior panel decision.
The longstanding prohibition on possession of firearms by felons is constitutional
United States v. Cunningham, 114 F.4th 671, 675 (8th Cir. 2024)
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the constitutionality of federal prohibitions on firearm possession by felons within the Eighth Circuit and prevents individual challenges to the statute based on existing panel precedent.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download