A federal appeals court has delivered a major blow to those seeking to overturn gun restrictions for felons, ruling that individuals with “dangerous” criminal histories do not have a Second Amendment right to own firearms.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued the decision Thursday in the case of United States v. Edlando Watson. The court specifically addressed whether the federal law barring felons from possessing guns is constitutional when applied to someone previously convicted of dealing drugs.
The Midnight Shooting
The case began in May 2022 following a chaotic scene in Madison, Wisconsin. According to court documents, a woman fleeing a residence jumped into an Uber, yelling, “He’s coming with a gun!” as three shots were fired at the vehicle.
Investigators linked the phone number of the suspect, nicknamed “Meek,” to Edlando Watson. A subsequent investigation involving storage units and recorded jailhouse calls led police to several handguns and rifles. DNA found on the weapons matched Watson, who was already a convicted felon.
READ: A Phone Call To The IRS Just Cost This Georgia Man Two Years In Federal Prison In Florida
The Constitutional Battle
Watson’s legal team moved to dismiss the charges, arguing that the federal felon-in-possession law violated his Second Amendment rights. They relied on recent Supreme Court shifts that require gun laws to be “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
However, Chief Judge Michael Brian Brennan, writing for the three-judge panel, rejected that argument. The court found that while “the people” protected by the Second Amendment does include felons as citizens, that right is not absolute.
“The right is not unlimited,” Brennan wrote, citing historical traditions of disarming groups deemed dangerous to society. “His disarmament is consistent with the history and tradition of Founding-era laws.”
“Greater Power Includes the Lesser”
The court leaned on two primary historical justifications:
- Historical Bans: At the time of the Nation’s founding, legislatures frequently disarmed groups perceived as threats to public safety.
- The Death Penalty Logic: In the 1700s, many felonies were punishable by death. The court reasoned that if the government historically had the power to execute a felon, it certainly has the “lesser” power to simply take away their guns.
The judges determined that drug trafficking is inherently “dangerous,” linking the illegal drug trade directly to violence and a threat to physical safety.
A Narrow Victory for the Government
While the ruling is a win for federal prosecutors, the court was careful not to issue a blanket ban for every type of criminal. The judges explicitly noted they were not deciding whether someone with a “non-dangerous” felony—such as a white-collar crime or a low-level non-violent offense—could be permanently disarmed.
The court also dismissed Watson’s claims that his DNA was seized illegally, ruling that federal authorities had enough independent evidence to justify the warrant regardless of earlier state police actions.
With this decision, Watson’s conviction stands, reinforcing the government’s power to keep firearms out of the hands of those with violent or “dangerous” criminal records.
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.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox
