Barragan-Gutierrez v. United States: Limits on Retroactive Second Amendment Challenges Under §2255(f)(3)

Introduction

In United States v. Barragan-Gutierrez, 10th Cir. No. 23-8032 (Apr. 15, 2025), the Tenth Circuit addressed whether two recent Supreme Court decisions—New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), and United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024)—announced a “new right” under the Second Amendment that would permit a collateral, retroactive challenge to a pre-existing conviction for possessing a firearm “in furtherance of” a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A).

Jorge Enrique Barragan-Gutierrez pled guilty in 2015 to drug trafficking charges and to using and possessing firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense. He was sentenced to 211 months’ imprisonment (later reduced to 181 months). After Bruen and Rahimi, he filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion arguing that § 924(c)(1)(A) criminalizing his firearm possession violated the Second Amendment and that these Supreme Court cases recognized a new right that should be applied retroactively to reopen his one-year statute of limitations under § 2255(f)(3).

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial, holding that neither Bruen nor Rahimi “formally acknowledged” a new Second Amendment right applicable to felons or those who use firearms in furtherance of a crime, and thus § 2255(f)(3) does not revive a time-barred petition.

Summary of the Judgment

The court confirmed that § 2255(f)(3) extends the one-year filing deadline only if the Supreme Court has “formally acknowledged” a new constitutional right “in a definitive way,” not merely by applying existing principles in new scenarios.
It reviewed Heller (2008), which recognized a core Second Amendment right for law-abiding individuals to keep firearms in the home for self-defense, but expressly declined to disturb long-standing prohibitions on felon-and-other-offender possession of weapons.
Both Bruen and Rahimi reaffirmed original-ist, historical-tradition analysis but did not announce a broad new right extending Second Amendment protection to convicted felons or to possession in furtherance of illicit activity.
Since no new right was recognized, the one-year limitations period expired in 2016, and the § 2255 motion filed in 2023 was untimely. The denial of relief was therefore affirmed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) – Recognized an individual right to possess firearms for self-defense in the home, but reaffirmed that longstanding prohibitions on felon possession and other restrictions remain valid.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) – Adopted a historical-tradition test for Second Amendment challenges and clarified that courts must identify a well-established analogue from history; applied Heller’s principles but did not expand rights to felons.
United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024) – Applied Bruen’s framework to restraining-order disarmament, holding that an individual subject to a domestic violence restraining order can be temporarily disarmed, but did not address felon status.
United States v. Greer, 881 F.3d 1241 (10th Cir. 2018) – Held that a Supreme Court decision must recognize a new right “not dictated by precedent” to reset § 2255(f)(3) limitations.
United States v. Hopkins, 920 F.3d 690 (10th Cir. 2019) – Reiterated that only a Supreme Court holding “formally acknowledge[d] . . . in a definite way” qualifies as a new right for collateral-review timing.
Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342 (2013) – Distinguished mere applications of existing rights from newly recognized rights.
Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) – Example of a genuine new right (invalidating the ACCA residual-clause sentencing enhancement) that triggered § 2255(f)(3) relief for some defendants.
United States v. Snyder, 871 F.3d 1122 (10th Cir. 2017) – Held Johnson announced a new right not previously dictated by precedent, making some § 2255 petitions timely.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning rested on two pillars:

Definition of a “Newly Recognized” Right
Under § 2255(f)(3), the statute of limitations is tolled for one year after the Supreme Court “recognizes” a new right. To qualify, the Supreme Court must do more than apply an existing principle in a slightly different context; it must issue a definite, formal acknowledgment of a right not “dictated by precedent.”
Application to Bruen and Rahimi
- Scope of Heller. Heller’s home-defense right was limited to law-abiding citizens; it expressly left intact prohibitions on felons and other disqualified individuals.
- Nature of Bruen and Rahimi. Both decisions elaborated on historical-analogue methodology but did not extend Second Amendment protection to felons or to possession in furtherance of illicit activity.
- No Formal Acknowledgment. Neither opinion stated or suggested that § 924(c)(1)(A) or felon-in-possession statutes were unconstitutional, nor that felons regained a right to bear arms. Instead, they reaffirmed the continued validity of existing restrictions.

Impact

This decision has several important implications:

It reinforces that collateral-review petitions under § 2255 remain tightly constrained by statutory time limits unless the Supreme Court clearly announces a brand-new constitutional right.
It confirms that Bruen and Rahimi, while significant for bearing on regulations like concealed-carry licensing and domestic-violence prohibitions, do not dismantle felon-possession bars or § 924(c) enhancements.
Lower courts are likely to follow Barragan-Gutierrez in rejecting retroactive Second Amendment challenges by convicted offenders based on these cases.
The ruling preserves legislative authority to punish possession of firearms in furtherance of drug trafficking and other serious crimes, consistent with historical practice recognized by Heller.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Collateral Attack (§ 2255): A motion filed by a federal prisoner asking the sentencing court to vacate or correct a sentence because it violates the Constitution or federal law.
Statute of Limitations (§ 2255(f)(3)): Normally one year from conviction. Extended by one year after the Supreme Court “recognizes” a new right that applies retroactively.
“New Right” Requirement: The Supreme Court must explicitly create a right for § 2255(f)(3) to apply; courts cannot simply extend reasoning to new contexts.
Historical-Tradition Test: Adopted in Bruen and Rahimi, this originalist method asks whether a firearm restriction aligns with long-standing historical regulations.
Felon-in-Possession Laws: Statutes that bar convicted felons and other disqualified persons from owning or carrying firearms—upheld as consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and history.

Conclusion

Barragan-Gutierrez v. United States confirms that neither Bruen nor Rahimi recognized a new Second Amendment right extending to convicted felons or firearm possession in furtherance of crimes. Consequently, Jorge Enrique Barragan-Gutierrez’s § 2255 motion was untimely under the strict one-year limit of § 2255(f)(1), and the exception in § 2255(f)(3) did not apply. The Tenth Circuit’s decision preserves the validity of federal statutes criminalizing firearm use in furtherance of illicit activity and underscores that only a clear, definitive pronouncement by the Supreme Court can reopen collateral-review time bars.