Ruling on a Montana case, the court upholds key federal gun laws under the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
In a significant decision for gun control advocates and Second Amendment rights proponents, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has affirmed the constitutionality of two federal laws that restrict firearm possession.
The court’s opinion, filed today, upholds 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which prohibits firearm possession by unlawful drug users, and 18 U.S.C. § 922(n), which bars individuals under felony indictment from receiving firearms.
READ: Armed Citizens Halt Terror Attack In Israel, CCRKBA Cites Value Of Self-Defense
The ruling came in the case of United States v. Jaren Michael Stennerson.
Second Amendment Challenges Rejected
The case centered on Jaren Michael Stennerson, who was indicted for possessing a firearm as an admitted daily user of methamphetamine and for illegally receiving a firearm while under a separate felony indictment.
Stennerson’s legal team argued that both federal statutes were unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, citing the Supreme Court’s landmark decisions in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022) and United States v. Rahimi (2024).
The Ninth Circuit panel, in an opinion authored by Judge Danielle J. Forrest, rejected Stennerson’s arguments, asserting that the statutes are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation. While acknowledging that the Second Amendment’s text presumptively protects the right to possess arms, the court reasoned that this right is not unlimited.
READ :SAF Challenges Illinois Foster, Day Care Gun Ban With Summary Judgment Filing
Historical Analogs for Modern Laws
The court’s decision relied on a historical analysis, drawing parallels between the modern statutes and older laws.
Drug Users and Intoxicated Individuals: For the drug user prohibition, the court found that historical laws restricting the possession or use of firearms by intoxicated individuals served as a valid analogy. Examples cited included 17th-century laws aimed at disarming individuals deemed a threat to public peace and colonial-era statutes that banned discharging guns while drinking.
The court concluded that while these historical laws may not have been exact “historical twins” of the modern statute, they were “relevantly similar” in their intent to disarm those whose judgment was impaired. The court noted that because there are some circumstances in which this law can be applied that are consistent with historical tradition, it is not facially unconstitutional.
READ :NYC Office Massacre: A Tragic Indictment Of “Dead Wrong” Gun Control, Says CCRKBA
Indicted Persons: Regarding the law against individuals under indictment, the court affirmed its constitutionality by comparing it to the founding-era practices of pretrial detention.
The opinion explained that in the past, individuals charged with serious crimes, including nonviolent ones, were often detained without the ability to possess arms.
The court determined that prohibiting someone under felony indictment from receiving a firearm is a less burdensome measure than outright detention and is justified by the same historical goal of public safety and maintaining the integrity of the criminal justice process.
Vagueness Challenge Also Fails
Stennerson’s lawyers also claimed that the term “unlawful user of…a controlled substance” was unconstitutionally vague.
They argued that it failed to provide a clear notice of what conduct is prohibited.
The court, however, dismissed this claim, noting that the facts of the case—Stennerson’s admission to being a daily methamphetamine user and addict—clearly fell within the scope of the statute. The panel referenced past rulings that have consistently found the statute to be understandable to an “ordinary person” given the defendant’s consistent and prolonged drug use.
The Ninth Circuit’s ruling adds to a growing consensus among federal courts, including the Fifth and Sixth Circuits, that have recently upheld similar federal firearm restrictions against Second Amendment challenges.
The decision signals a continued judicial effort to reconcile modern gun laws with the historical analysis required by recent Supreme Court precedent.
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Connect with us: Follow the Tampa Free Press on Facebook and Twitter for breaking news and updates.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.
