Background
Andre Demarcus Rubell appealed his conviction and sentence for possessing a firearm after a felony conviction in violation of Section eighteen of the United States Code, Section nine hundred twenty-two, subsection G, paragraph one. He argued that the statute violated the Second Amendment on its face, exceeded Congress’s Commerce Clause authority, and that the district court erred in relying on Guidelines commentary defining large capacity magazines. Rubell conceded that these issues were foreclosed by precedent but raised them to preserve them for further review.
The court’s reasoning
The court found that Rubell’s facial Second Amendment challenge was foreclosed by United States versus Diaz. His commerce-related challenges were foreclosed by United States versus Rawls and United States versus Alcantar. The court also held that Guidelines commentary defining large capacity magazines is controlling under United States versus Martin. Summary affirmance was deemed appropriate under Groendyke Transportation versus Davis.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the binding nature of Fifth Circuit precedent on Second Amendment and Commerce Clause challenges to federal firearm statutes and confirms the controlling authority of Sentencing Guidelines commentary on large capacity magazines.