We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.
HOME IS WHERE THE GUN IS
Curtis Squire had his home searched after a shooting occurred nearby. Police did not find the gun used in the crime, but they did find a different gun. Curtis, who had previous state convictions for conspiracy to possess and distribution of heroin, was charged with being a convicted felon in possession of a gun, a violation of 18 USC § 922(g)(1).
Curtis argued that § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional under the 2nd Amendment as applied to him, because keeping a gun at home for self-defense was different than taking it out in public, and the history of gun legislation in America recognized as much. He also argued that a drug offense was not inherently violent and was not the kind of crime punished in colonial days by gun confiscation.
Last week, the 5th Circuit disagreed, admitting that Curt’s argument was “novel” but disposing of it nonetheless because what Curtis was convicted of doing – drug dealing – was inherently a dangerous undertaking.
The Circuit held:
[T]he home-based distinction [Squire] attempts to draw within our Nation’s historical tradition is mugged by the reality that our historical laws support his disarmament, even in the special confines of his home. While the Constitution safeguards the core right to keep and bear [arms] inside the home, see District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 625-28 (2008), it does not dislocate the government’s regulatory power to strip certain groups of this right, “Congress is entitled to make categorical judgments,” Vidal v. Elster, 602 U.S. 286, 319 (2024) (Barrett, J., concurring in part), including a values-based policy judgment that convicted drug traffickers, such as Squire—whose conviction involved an “inherently dangerous activity,” United States v. Kimble, 142 F.4th 308, 317 (5th Cir. 2025) —may be disarmed under § 922(g)(1) consistent with our historical tradition. That conclusion does not rest upon an “individualized assessment” that Squire is “dangerous,” based on some amorphous understanding of the word. See id. at 318; see also United States v. Mitchell, 160 F.4th 169, 187 (5th Cir. 2025) (“Rahimi did not sweepingly proclaim that ‘dangerousness’ is the new standard for Second Amendment challenges.”). Nor does it reflect a freewheeling judicial balancing of rights and safety. See New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 26 (2022) (explaining the “Constitution demands” that courts jettison “interest balancing” in favor of history and tradition). Instead, Squire’s dangerousness is premised solely on his drug trafficking offense, which places him in “a class of dangerous felons that our regulatory tradition permits legislatures to disarm.” Kimble, 142 F.4th at 318 (emphasis added).
United States v. Squire, Case No. 25-30324, 2026 U.S.App. LEXIS 15873 (5th Cir., June 2, 2026)
~ Thomas L. Root