Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Alforn Napoleon Lee was convicted of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court sentenced him to 29 months in prison, three years of supervised release, and a $1,500 fine.
On appeal, Lee argued that § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional both facially and as applied to him under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen. He also argued that a firearm’s past movement in interstate commerce was insufficient to satisfy the statute’s commerce element and that the statute exceeded Congress’s Commerce Clause authority. Lee conceded that Fifth Circuit precedent foreclosed each argument, and the government filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit held that its existing decisions foreclosed Lee’s facial and as-applied Second Amendment challenges to § 922(g)(1). The court cited United States v. Diaz for the facial challenge and United States v. Kimble, United States v. Schnur, and United States v. Giglio for the as-applied challenge.
The court also held that precedent foreclosed Lee’s arguments concerning the Commerce Clause and § 922(g)(1)’s “in or affecting commerce” element, citing United States v. Alcantar and United States v. Rawls. It therefore granted the government’s motion for summary affirmance and affirmed the district court’s judgment.
Key Takeaways
- Binding Fifth Circuit precedent foreclosed Lee’s facial challenge to § 922(g)(1) under the Second Amendment.
- Fifth Circuit precedent also foreclosed his as-applied Second Amendment challenge.
- Prior circuit decisions defeated Lee’s Commerce Clause and interstate-commerce-element arguments, making summary affirmance appropriate.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that, in the Fifth Circuit, the precedents identified by the panel continue to control facial and as-applied Second Amendment challenges to § 922(g)(1), as well as arguments that the statute requires more than a firearm’s prior movement in interstate commerce.