Just a note on Bruen challenges. Please be advised (yup, that’s police lingo) that I have been compiling Bruen materials (cases, challenges, some briefing). I hope to have a discussion on the status of Bruen challenges during a weekly brainstorming/Virtual Zoom in November.
Note that there have been two Bruen challenges that have found statutes unconstitutional: (i) 922(n) (United States v. Quiroz, W.D. Texas) and (ii) 922(k) (United States v. Price, S.D. W.Va.). There has not been any successful Bruen challenge to 922(g) – except a voidness opinion on 922(g)(3) (drug user in possession), in United States v. Morales, D. Utah.
To date I have seen 24 challenges to 922(g)(1) (felon in possession), none of which has succeeded. One opinion (United States v. Trinidad, D.P.R.) sought additional historical analysis from the gov’t.
Attached is preliminary table of the cases I have seen to date. My scorecard is a total of 39 challenges, 35 cases denying challenges, 2 cases finding unconstitutionality under Bruen (922(n) and 922(k)), 1 case finding 922(g) unconstitutionally vague, and 1 case seeking more historical evidence from the gov’t: 35-3-1.
Also attached is this week’s Victory Newsletter from Dan Siegel.