After serving a state sentence for illegal use of a firearm, John Wayne Morgan Jr. was stopped by police in Louisiana in 2023 while riding in a vehicle containing four loaded guns, one of which was stolen. He was indicted on two federal charges: (1) being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and (2) possessing unregistered firearms, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d).

Morgan moved to dismiss both counts, arguing that the statutes violated the Second Amendment under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). In this case, the Supreme Court established a two-step framework for Second Amendment issues. First, courts ask whether the Amendment’s plain text covers the conduct at issue. If it does, the burden shifts to the government, and they must then demonstrate the existence of longstanding historical tradition of disarming those with criminal histories such as Morgan. Morgan contended that, under this test, the government could not justify § 922(g)(1) as applied to him because there was no founding-era tradition of disarming individuals based solely on a felony conviction rather than on demonstrated dangerousness.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” U.S. Const. amend. II. The Second Amendment is perhaps the most hotly debated provision of the Constitution. Whether focus is placed on the word “regulated,” “Militia,” “bear,” or “infringed,” interpretation of its plain language can yield a broad array of results. Because of this, there is a patchwork of regulations across states governing who may possess arms, what type, and in what locations.

The federal government imposes few firearms restrictions aside from those that regulate their sale or prohibit those found guilty of certain criminal conduct from purchasing or possessing firearms. It is one of the Commerce Clause restrictions that brings us today’s split.