Brandon Oliver appealed his conviction in the Northern District of Alabama for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Before the trial, Oliver filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The district court denied this motion, and Oliver appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, contending that the statute violates his constitutional rights to bear arms.
The court affirmed the conviction by applying the prior panel precedent rule, which binds subsequent panels to the holdings of earlier panels unless overruled by the Supreme Court or the court sitting en banc. The court relied on its decision in United States v. Rozier, which held that statutory restrictions on firearm possession by felons are constitutional, citing the Supreme Court's statement in District of Columbia v. Heller that nothing in that opinion casts doubt on longstanding prohibitions on felons possessing firearms. Oliver argued that recent Supreme Court decisions in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen and United States v. Rahimi undermined Rozier. However, the court noted that in United States v. Dubois II, it had already addressed these arguments, explaining that Rahimi reaffirmed that prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons are presumptively lawful. The court emphasized that clearer instruction from the Supreme Court is necessary before it may reconsider the constitutionality of section 922(g)(1).
The decision reaffirms that the Eleventh Circuit remains bound by its precedent prohibiting felons from possessing firearms, even after the Supreme Court's modern Second Amendment jurisprudence. Oliver's conviction stands, and the ruling clarifies that challenges to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) based on Bruen or Rahimi will be rejected in this circuit until the Supreme Court provides clearer instruction or the Eleventh Circuit sits en banc to reconsider the precedent.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download