Glen Prince was indicted for violating 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1), a federal statute prohibiting firearm possession by anyone convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year. The district court dismissed the indictment, concluding that the statute was invalid on its face under the Second Amendment. The United States appealed, arguing that the lower court misinterpreted Supreme Court precedent regarding the rights of felons to possess firearms. Prince had prior convictions for armed robbery and aggravated battery, and his current prosecution stemmed from an incident where he accosted passengers on public transport with a loaded semi-automatic weapon.
Circuit Judge Easterbrook, writing for the panel, reasoned that Supreme Court precedent does not support a categorical prohibition on disarming all felons. The court noted that in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court explicitly stated that 'longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons' are valid. This principle was reaffirmed in McDonald v. Chicago and remained intact following New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, as emphasized by concurring Justices Alito and Kavanaugh. The court further observed that United States v. Rahimi established a risk-centric approach, allowing the disarmament of individuals adjudicated as dangerous. Judge Easterbrook explained that a felony conviction is a plausible indicator of danger, making it difficult to conclude that §922(g)(1) cannot be applied to anyone, especially someone with a history of violent crime. The court cited Prince's specific conduct—armed robbery and carrying a loaded weapon on public transit—as evidence that he falls within the category of dangerous individuals the statute is designed to regulate. The opinion also noted that while some courts have debated the validity of specific applications of the statute, there is a consensus that §922(g)(1) is valid in many applications and cannot be declared unconstitutional on its face. The Seventh Circuit declined to act as an echo chamber, citing decisions from other circuits that support this view, and reserved decision on as-applied challenges for felons whose convictions do not suggest danger.
The decision allows the federal government to proceed with prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1) against felons whose convictions suggest they pose a danger, reversing the trend of some lower courts dismissing indictments on facial grounds. The case is remanded to the district court to continue Prince's prosecution. However, the court left open the question of whether the statute is valid as applied to felons whose convictions do not indicate a risk of danger, meaning that specific as-applied challenges may still be litigated in the future.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download