Background
Pouk Kang Kang was charged with possessing a firearm as a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the statute violated his Second Amendment right to possess firearms.
The district court denied the motion because Kang’s arguments were foreclosed by Eighth Circuit precedent. Kang then entered a conditional guilty plea that preserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. It rejected Kang’s argument that § 922(g)(1) covers too broad a class because some modern felonies involve less serious conduct than crimes recognized when the Second Amendment was ratified. Under the circuit’s decision in United States v. Jackson, courts need not conduct felony-by-felony litigation over the statute’s constitutionality.
The court also rejected Kang’s argument that § 922(g)(1) is facially unconstitutional because it permanently bars people with felony convictions from possessing firearms. The panel relied on United States v. Bernard, which described Jackson as holding that the statute’s permanent prohibition is constitutional.
Key Takeaways
- The Eighth Circuit continues to treat § 922(g)(1) as constitutional without requiring individualized review of each predicate felony.
- Differences in seriousness among modern felony offenses do not require felony-by-felony Second Amendment litigation under controlling circuit precedent.
- The statute’s permanent firearm prohibition for people with felony convictions is not facially unconstitutional in the Eighth Circuit.
Why It Matters
The unpublished decision reinforces the Eighth Circuit’s existing approach to Second Amendment challenges against the federal felon-in-possession statute. Defendants cannot obtain dismissal merely by arguing that their predicate offense was less serious than historical crimes or that the statutory prohibition lasts for life.