United States v. Bogle

717 F.3d 281, 2013 WL 2278101, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 10392
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided May 23, 2013·No. Docket 11-349-cr·Published·Cited by 57 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Gary Bogle appeals his conviction for possessing a firearm and body armor as a convicted felon. The relevant facts are set forth in the summary order disposing of the majority of Bogle’s arguments. We write only to address whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment, an issue that we have not yet decided by precedential opinion.

Bogle argues that § 922(g)(1), which makes it unlawful for a convicted felon to possess a firearm in or affecting interstate commerce, violates his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Bogle relies on recent Supreme Court opinions developing a more expansive interpretation of the Amendment. But in both of these opinions, the Supreme Court clearly emphasized that recent developments in Second Amendment jurisprudence should not “be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008); see also McDonald v. City of Chicago, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 3020, 3047, 177 L.Ed.2d 894 (2010) (‘We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons.... We repeat those assurances here.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). We therefore join every other circuit to consider the issue in affirming that § 922(g)(1) is *282 a constitutional restriction on the Second Amendment rights of convicted felons. 1

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

1

. See United States v. Moore, 666 F.3d 313, 318-19 (4th Cir.2012); United States v. Barton, 633 F.3d 168, 175 (3d Cir.2011); United States v. Joos, 638 F.3d 581, 586 (8th Cir.2011); United States v. Rozier, 598 F.3d 768, 771 (11th Cir.2010); United States v. Williams, 616 F.3d 685, 693-94 (7th Cir. 2010); United States v. Vongxay, 594 F.3d 1111, 1115 (9th Cir.2010); United States v. Carey, 602 F.3d 738, 741 (6th Cir.2010); United States v. McCane, 573 F.3d 1037, 1047 (10th Cir.2009); United States v. Anderson, 559 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir.2009).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. Bogle, 717 F.3d 281, 2013 WL 2278101, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 10392 (2d Cir. 2013).

717 F.3d 281 (United States v. Bogle) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Warren
Second Circuit, 2026
United States v. Hendrix
Second Circuit, 2026
United States v. Buckley
Second Circuit, 2026
United States v. Rodriguez
Second Circuit, 2025
United States v. Scott
Second Circuit, 2025
United States v. Horan
Second Circuit, 2025
United States v. Woods
Second Circuit, 2025
United States v. Mingo
Second Circuit, 2025
United States v. Lesane
Second Circuit, 2025
United States v. Williams
Second Circuit, 2025
United States v. Fable
Second Circuit, 2025
People v. Harris
2025 NY Slip Op 51550(U) (New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, 2025)
United States v. Reyes
Second Circuit, 2025
United States v. Delgado
Second Circuit, 2025
United States v. Oquendo
Second Circuit, 2025
United States v. Garlick
Second Circuit, 2025
United States v. Davila
Second Circuit, 2025
United States v. Sabree
Second Circuit, 2025
United States v. Miller
Second Circuit, 2025