Bruen and Felon Gun Rights: Are Federal Firearms...

The Constitutional Question That Could Change Everything

For decades, the federal prohibition on firearm possession by convicted felons under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) was treated as essentially untouchable. Courts upheld it routinely, often with little analysis, under the assumption that the government’s interest in keeping firearms away from convicted criminals was self-evident. The Supreme Court’s decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), has changed this calculus. For the first time in modern history, federal courts are seriously questioning whether § 922(g)(1) — at least as applied to certain categories of felons — is consistent with the Second Amendment. At Clark + Harris in Lexington and Louisville, we are pursuing these constitutional challenges on behalf of Kentucky clients and monitoring developments across the country.

The Pre-Bruen Consensus

Before Bruen, federal courts applied a two-step framework that almost always upheld § 922(g)(1). The Supreme Court’s earlier decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), included dicta suggesting that “longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons” were “presumptively lawful.” Courts seized on this language to reject virtually all challenges to § 922(g)(1) without conducting any rigorous analysis of the statute’s constitutionality.

How Bruen Changed the Analysis

Bruen replaced the two-step framework with a text, history, and tradition test. Under this test, the government must demonstrate that a firearms restriction is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation by identifying historical analogues that are relevantly similar to the modern restriction. Importantly, Bruen did not address the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) directly. But by changing the analytical framework, it opened the door to challenges that had previously been foreclosed.

The key question under Bruen is whether the permanent disarmament of all convicted felons — regardless of the nature of their offense — has a sufficient historical foundation. Defenders of § 922(g)(1) point to historical evidence of laws disarming “dangerous” persons and persons convicted of certain crimes. Critics argue that the founding-era concept of disarmament was much narrower than the modern blanket prohibition, which applies equally to violent offenders and people convicted of non-violent offenses like tax fraud or regulatory violations.

The Emerging Split

Since Bruen, a genuine split has emerged in the federal courts. Several district courts have found § 922(g)(1) unconstitutional as applied to non-violent felons. Other courts have upheld the statute even under the Bruen framework, finding sufficient historical support for the disarmament of all felons. The circuit courts are beginning to weigh in, and the Sixth Circuit — which covers Kentucky — has addressed the issue in several cases, though a definitive resolution has yet to emerge.

The Non-Violent vs. Violent Distinction

The most promising line of argument for Kentucky defendants focuses on the distinction between violent and non-violent felonies. Even courts that have upheld § 922(g)(1) in general terms have acknowledged that the case for disarming violent felons is stronger than the case for disarming non-violent felons. For individuals convicted of drug offenses, property crimes, financial crimes, and other non-violent offenses, the argument that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied is particularly compelling.

Rahimi’s Impact

The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Rahimi, which upheld § 922(g)(8) (domestic violence restraining orders), provided some guidance on how Bruen applies to firearms disabilities. Importantly, the Rahimi Court emphasized that the government need not identify a historical “twin” — only a historical analogue that is relevantly similar. However, Rahimi did not address § 922(g)(1) directly, and the disarmament of all convicted felons raises different historical and constitutional questions than the disarmament of individuals subject to domestic violence orders.

What This Means for Kentucky Felons

If you have been convicted of a felony in Kentucky — particularly a non-violent felony — and are prohibited from possessing firearms, the post-Bruen legal landscape offers potential constitutional arguments that did not exist before 2022. The viability of these arguments depends on the specific facts of your case, the nature of your conviction, and the evolving case law in the Sixth Circuit.

At Clark + Harris, our attorneys are actively pursuing Bruen-based challenges to § 922(g)(1) in federal courts in Kentucky. We have the expertise to evaluate whether a constitutional challenge is appropriate in your case and to develop the historical and legal arguments necessary to support it.

Don’t risk a federal firearms charge by assuming your rights are restored. Call Clark + Harris at 859-474-0001 for a legal analysis of your specific situation. Our Lexington and Louisville attorneys can evaluate the strength of a constitutional challenge in your specific case and advise you on the best path to restoring your Second Amendment rights.

Frequently Asked Questions

How soon should I contact Clark + Harris after being charged in Kentucky?

As soon as possible. Early representation protects your rights during questioning, preserves evidence, and often leads to better outcomes. Call 859-474-0001 — we respond promptly to new inquiries.

Does Clark + Harris represent clients throughout Kentucky?

Yes. We represent clients in all 120 Kentucky counties, both state District and Circuit courts, and federal courts in the Eastern and Western Districts of Kentucky.

What happens during a free consultation with Clark + Harris?

We review the specific charges and evidence, discuss available defenses, explain the likely process in the relevant court, and give you a clear roadmap of next steps — at no cost to you.

Related Resources

If this information applied to your situation, the following Clark + Harris guides may also be helpful:

Bruen and Felon Gun Rights: Are Federal Firearms Disabilities Constitutional?