It’s January 2026, more than 234 years after the Second Amendment was ratified and “We the People” are still having to use the Courts to justify OUR RIGHT to keep and bear arms. As gun owners, we know and understand the language penned by James Madison as he codified the Government’s inability to infringe upon our rights; however, for many in Washington D.C., he may as well have written it in a foreign language.Despite the founder’s original intent, laws have been enacted which limit a person’s inherent right of self-defense. One of the most impactful firearm law on record is the federal prohibition on felons possessing guns has long stood as a cornerstone of public policy.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), anyone convicted of a felony, defined as any crime punishable by more than one year in prison, is barred from owning or possessing a firearm. This restriction applies automatically, without regard to the specifics of the offense, encompassing a wide range of crimes from violent acts to nonviolent regulatory violations. For decades, this law has been enforced broadly, aiming to prevent potential risks associated with firearm access. However, a recent decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has introduced a nuanced challenge to its application, highlighting the tension between statutory bans and constitutional protections under the Second Amendment.
While this ruling is a great step towards defending individual liberty, the Fifth Circuit’s ruling did not dismantle the felon gun ban wholesale. Instead, it declared the law unconstitutional as applied to a specific defendant, marking a targeted intervention rather than a sweeping overhaul. From the legal perspective, this “as-applied” challenge is a critical distinction in constitutional law. Unlike a “facial” challenge, which would invalidate the statute entirely for all individuals, an as-applied ruling focuses on the unique circumstances of the case at hand. The courtdetermined that while the ban might hold up in general scenarios, enforcing it against the defendant Edward Cockerham violated his rights. This approach allows for case-by-case evaluations, preserving the law’s core while carving out exceptions where it overreaches.
At the core of this decision was Edward Cockerham’s background, which highlighted the overreach of the federal prohibition. Cockerham had been convicted of a single felony: failure to pay child support. This offense, while serious in its implications for family obligations, did not involve violence, weapons, or any threat to public safety. Notably, the defendant never served time in prison, receiving a non-custodial sentence instead. The court emphasized that stripping this person of their Second Amendment rights for lifebased solely on this nonviolent, financial-related conviction did not align with the historical underpinnings of firearm regulations. It argued that such permanent disarmament was disproportionate, especially given the absence of any indicators of danger or recidivism.
This ruling draws directly from the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Bruen established a new framework for evaluating gun laws, requiring courts to assess whether a restriction is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Under this test, modern laws must have a historical analogue, meaning they should mirror regulations from the founding era or the timeframe of an amendment’s ratification. The Fifth Circuit applied this standard rigorously, concluding that there is no longstanding tradition of disarming individuals for nonviolent, regulatory offenses like unpaid child support. Historical precedents, the court noted, typically focused on disarming those deemed dangerous, such as violent criminals or those posing imminent threats. By contrast, the defendant’s felony fell into a category of civil or administrative wrongs, lacking the violent intent that justified early disarmament practices.
Importantly, the ruling does not signal a free-for-all for felons seeking firearm access. It explicitly does not legalize guns for all individuals with felony convictions, nor does it extend protections to those with violent histories. Offenders convicted of crimes involving assault, robbery, or other acts of aggression remain subject to the ban, as historical traditions support disarming those who have demonstrated dangerous behavior. The decision also leaves the federal felon gun ban intact as a rule, meaning it continues to apply unless successfully challenged in specific cases.
Moving forward, the ruling’s impact is geographically limited to the Fifth Circuit’s jurisdiction (Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi), whereas nonviolent felons may now mount challenges to their disarmament, provided they can demonstrate that their offense lacks a violent component and does not fit historical patterns of regulation. Factors such as the nature of the crime; whether it involved deceit, harm to others, or mere regulatory non-compliance, will likely play a pivotal role in future cases. With this precedence established, I would expect challenges to arise from many more areas of the nation; leading up to forcing SCOTUS to make a ruling, as we all know not all Circuit Appeals Courts are not alighted on 2A rights and interpretation will likely vary greatly.
As anticipated following the Bruen decision, this rulingreflects a growing judicial emphasis on individual rights. Courts across the country are reevaluating various gun laws through this historical lens, from prohibitions on certain firearms to restrictions on carry permits and is helping to ensure lifelong penalties are not imposed lightly without constitutional justification.In summary, the Fifth Circuit’s ruling comes down to a principled stand: permanently banning firearm possession for someone whose sole felony was unpaid child support (who avoided prison entirely) EXCEEDS constitutional bounds. This narrow victory affirms that Second Amendment protections extend even to those with imperfect records, provided their past does not indicate danger. As courts continue to grapple with Bruen’s implications, this case serves as a reminder of the balance between “public safety” and individual liberties in America’s ongoing firearm debate
Editor’s Note: President Trump and Republicans across the country are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.
Help us continue to report on their efforts and legislative successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Read the full article here
