Bruen Comes to Kentucky

Since the Supreme Court decided NYSRPA v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), courts across the country — including federal courts in Kentucky — have been working to apply its text, history, and tradition framework to a wide variety of firearms regulations. The results have been uneven, with some courts embracing Bruen‘s approach enthusiastically and others applying it more cautiously. For Kentucky gun owners, understanding how local courts are applying Bruen is essential for evaluating your rights and your legal options. At Clark + Harris in Lexington and Louisville, we track these developments closely and incorporate them into our litigation strategies.

The Sixth Circuit’s Approach

Kentucky falls within the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which also covers Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. The Sixth Circuit’s interpretation of Bruen is binding on all federal district courts in Kentucky — meaning the Eastern District (Lexington) and the Western District (Louisville). How the Sixth Circuit applies Bruen to various firearms restrictions will determine the scope of Second Amendment protections available to Kentuckians.

The Sixth Circuit has been actively addressing Bruen challenges since the decision was issued. The court has considered challenges to felon-in-possession statutes, domestic violence firearms prohibitions, and other restrictions under the new framework. The results have been mixed, reflecting the genuine difficulty of applying a historical-analogue test to modern firearms regulations.

Key Issues Being Litigated

Section 922(g)(1) — Felon in Possession

The most significant Bruen issue for Kentucky criminal defendants is the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the federal felon-in-possession statute. Before Bruen, challenges to § 922(g)(1) were almost universally rejected. After Bruen, the landscape has shifted. Several federal district courts have found the statute unconstitutional as applied to specific defendants — particularly those with non-violent felony convictions. The question is whether the Sixth Circuit will follow this trend.

Section 922(g)(8) — Domestic Violence Orders

The constitutionality of § 922(g)(8), which prohibits firearm possession by persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders, was directly addressed by the Supreme Court in United States v. Rahimi. The Court upheld § 922(g)(8), finding that it was consistent with historical tradition. This decision provides some guidance on how Bruen applies to domestic violence-related firearms restrictions, but it does not resolve all questions in this area.

Kentucky State Regulations

While most Bruen litigation has focused on federal statutes, the decision applies equally to state firearms regulations. KRS 527.040 (felon in possession) and other Kentucky firearms statutes are subject to the same text, history, and tradition test. If a Kentucky firearms restriction cannot be justified by historical tradition, it is constitutionally suspect under Bruen.

The Historical Analysis Challenge

One of the most difficult aspects of post-Bruen litigation is the historical analysis itself. Courts must examine firearms regulations from the founding era (roughly 1791) and the Reconstruction era (roughly 1868) to determine whether modern restrictions have historical analogues. This requires extensive historical research and expert testimony, and reasonable courts can reach different conclusions about the historical evidence.

At Clark + Harris, our attorneys invest significant resources in historical research and work with historians and other experts to develop the strongest possible arguments in Bruen-based challenges. We understand that the quality of the historical analysis often determines the outcome of these cases.

What Kentucky Gun Owners Should Know

The post-Bruen landscape is still evolving, and the law in this area is changing rapidly. What was settled law before 2022 may now be subject to constitutional challenge. If you are affected by a firearms restriction — whether it is a criminal charge, a licensing denial, a NICS denial, or any other limitation on your Second Amendment rights — you should consult with an attorney who is current on the latest Bruen developments.

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 attorneys in Lexington and Louisville are actively litigating Bruen-based challenges and can evaluate the strength of constitutional arguments in your specific case.

Related Resources

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

Second Amendment Rights After Bruen: How Kentucky Courts Are Applying the Decision