Background
Nacorian Lee Taylor was convicted of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section nine hundred twenty-two G one and sentenced to eighty-four months in prison. On appeal, Taylor argued that the statute is unconstitutional on its face and as applied under New York State Rifle and Pistol Association Inc versus Bruen, and that the statute exceeds Congress’s Commerce Clause authority.
The court’s reasoning
The court found that Taylor’s facial challenge to the statute is foreclosed by United States versus Diaz. His as-applied challenge is likewise foreclosed by United States versus Schnur and United States versus Bullock. Finally, his arguments concerning the Commerce Clause and the statute’s commerce element are foreclosed by United States versus Alcantar and United States versus Rawls. The court concluded that summary affirmance is appropriate under these circumstances.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the Fifth Circuit’s position that challenges to 18 U.S.C. Section nine hundred twenty-two G one based on Bruen or Commerce Clause grounds are without merit in light of existing circuit precedent.