Background
Peter Villa Cordova pled guilty to possessing a firearm after a felony conviction in violation of Section nineteen hundred and eighty-two of Title eighteen of the United States Code. His prior felony convictions included drug possession and evading arrest or detention with a motor vehicle. Cordova raised an as-applied challenge to the statute in his motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing it violated the Second Amendment.
The court’s reasoning
The court applied the well-trod approach for Second Amendment challenges established in prior Fifth Circuit precedent. The court reasoned that there is a historical tradition of disarming individuals whose underlying convictions stemmed from the threat and commission of violence with a firearm. The court found that vehicular evasion of arrest is often catastrophic and probative of dangerousness. Consequently, Cordova’s decision to use a car to evade the police posed a risk to fellow citizens and demonstrated a credible threat to the physical safety of others, causing his challenge to fail.
Given that vehicular pursuits are often catastrophic, Cordova’s decision to use a car to evade the police is probative of his dangerousness.
United States of America v. Peter Villa Cordova, No. 24-50564 (5th Cir. May 20, 2026)
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the Fifth Circuit’s precedent that individuals convicted of violent offenses, including vehicular evasion of arrest, may be permanently disarmed under Section nineteen hundred and eighty-two of Title eighteen of the United States Code without violating the Second Amendment.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download