United States v. Aaron Lindsey

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-2871

___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Aaron Christopher Lindsey

Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Central

____________

Submitted: April 8, 2024

Filed: May 16, 2024

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, MELLOY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Aaron Lindsey pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements to a financial institution and conditionally pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, preserving his right to appeal the district court’s 1 denial of

1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

his motion to dismiss the felon-in-possession charge. He was sentenced to 48 months’ imprisonment. Lindsey now appeals, arguing that the felon-in-possession statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), violates the Second Amendment both on its face and as applied to him.

Precedent forecloses Lindsey’s contentions. “The longstanding prohibition on possession of firearms by felons is constitutional.” United States v. Cunningham, 70 F.4th 502, 506 (8th Cir. 2023); see United States v. Jackson, 69 F.4th 495, 502- 06 (8th Cir. 2023) (explaining that § 922(g)(1) is consistent with the nation’s history and tradition). And our cases rule out the “need for felony-by-felony litigation regarding the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1).” Jackson, 69 F.4th at 502; Cunningham, 70 F.4th at 506. Lindsey acknowledges as much. Accordingly, his facial and as-applied constitutional challenges to § 922(g)(1) fail.

Affirmed.

______________________________