NEW ORLEANS — On June 2, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a decision addressing whether the Second Amendment protects a convicted drug trafficker from possessing a firearm inside his home. Although the court calls the specifics of this case a “novel question,” the topic of felons and lifetime bans on firearms possession continues to be of national significance.
The three-judge panel issued its narrow ruling in United States v. Squire in a 20-page decision confirming the defendant’s conviction and sentence, writing “We conclude only that Section 922(g)(1), as applied to a convicted drug trafficker possessing a firearm inside his home, is consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation under Bruen.”
On March 8, 2024, Mr. Squire was charged and convicted of possessing a firearm and ammunition after being convicted of a felony offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(1). Mr. Squire had multiple prior felony convictions, including:
- conspiracy and substantive count of possession with the intent to distribute heroin
- conspiracy and substantive count of possession of a firearm with a controlled dangerous substance
- conspiracy and substantive count of obstruction of justice
- conspiracy to possess stolen things
- simple burglary
- unauthorized use of a motor vehicle
Initially, the state dropped the charges, but the Biden-Harris Department of Justice under Merrick Garland brought an indictment as part of its “Project Safe Neighborhoods.”
Mr. Squire moved to dismiss the conviction, arguing under a Second Amendment constitutional challenge that there was no historical precedent for disarming a citizen in his home, despite his felon status.
The case’s procedural history includes numerous elements prior to arriving at the Fifth Circuit, which concluded, “Because our historical tradition supports disarming drug traffickers based on their dangerousness, we AFFIRM the judgment of conviction and sentence.”
In arriving at its decision, the court primarily applied three other related decisions it had previously decided, including Diaz (2024), Kimble (2025), and Mitchell (2025). The “novel” element, according to the court, is whether our nation has a historical precedent of disarming drug traffickers in particular.
After attempting to apply the Bruen precedent, the court ultimately wrote, “…we conclude that Section 922(g)(1) as applied to drug traffickers permits arms dispossession based on dangerousness, not location. Accordingly, we hold that Squire may be constitutionally disarmed under Section 922(g)(1) in this case.”
Although the circumstances in Mr. Squire’s case may be unique, this is not the first time that courts have grappled with how the constitutional right to keep and bear arms applies to felons. The Ninth Circuit issued a decision in a case related to non-violent felons in 2024. And the Supreme Court ruling in Rahimi deals with this concept at large, as explained in this editorial.
