Post-Bruen Endorsement of Federal Firearms Prohibitions – A Sixth Circuit Commentary on United States v. Greely, Branch & Burnett

Introduction

The consolidated appeal in United States v. Demarcus Learious Greely, Omarion Branch & Torez Zaron Burnett, Nos. 23-1978/2042/2050 (6th Cir. 2025), invited the Sixth Circuit to decide whether three commonly-litigated federal gun statutes remain constitutional after the Supreme Court’s watershed decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022):

• 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) – the post-1986 ban on civilian possession or transfer of machineguns,
• 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) – the felon-in-possession prohibition, and
• 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) – the bar on firearm possession by unlawful users of controlled substances.

Each defendant pleaded guilty but reserved constitutional objections (except Burnett, who withdrew his § 922(g)(3) objection at sentencing and attacked only the substantive reasonableness of his 60-month term). The panel – Judges Clay (author), Thapar, and Readler – affirmed on all fronts, holding that:

1. Machinegun ban (§ 922(o)) survives Bruen and is squarely controlled by the Sixth Circuit’s pre-Bruen decision in United States v. Hamblen, 591 F.3d 471 (6th Cir. 2009).
2. Felon-in-possession ban (§ 922(g)(1)) likewise remains valid, a conclusion cemented by the Circuit’s post-Bruen published opinion in United States v. Williams, 113 F.4th 637 (6th Cir. 2024).
3. Burnett’s waiver foreclosed any § 922(g)(3) challenge, and his within-Guidelines sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable.

Summary of the Judgment

The panel issued an unpublished but precedentially persuasive opinion:

• Greely – facial challenge to § 922(o) rejected; no evidentiary hearing required.
• Branch – facial challenge to § 922(g)(1) rejected under binding precedent.
• Burnett – constitutional claim waived; 60-month sentence upheld as reasonable.

Collectively, the decision fortifies the Sixth Circuit’s position that Bruen does not unsettle longstanding federal prohibitions on dangerous or disqualified persons’ firearm possession.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) – Recognised an individual right to keep and bear arms but expressly called bans on machineguns and felon-in-possession laws “presumptively lawful.” The panel relies on this language as the Supreme Court’s baseline.

2. New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) – Adopted a two-step historical-analogue test for firearm regulations. Defendants argued that Bruen displaced Heller; the court disagreed, reading Bruen as complementary.

3. United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024) – Clarified how courts locate historical analogues; expressly reaffirmed Heller’s “presumptively lawful” categories. The panel cites Rahimi to show the Supreme Court’s continued acceptance of felon and dangerous-weapon bans.

4. United States v. Hamblen, 591 F.3d 471 (6th Cir. 2009) – Upheld § 922(o) post-Heller; remains binding circuit precedent directly on point for Greely.

5. United States v. Williams, 113 F.4th 637 (6th Cir. 2024) – Applied Bruen and sustained § 922(g)(1); dispositive for Branch’s claim.

6. United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc) & United States v. Rayyan, 885 F.3d 436 (6th Cir. 2018) – Set framework for substantive-reasonableness review, supporting affirmance of Burnett’s sentence.

B. Legal Reasoning of the Court

1. Binding-precedent principle. Under Sixth Circuit rules, a published panel opinion binds future panels unless the Supreme Court or the en banc court overrules it. Because neither Hamblen nor Williams has been disturbed, the panel deemed itself compelled to reject Greely’s and Branch’s challenges without re-weighing the historical record.
2. Interplay of Heller, Bruen, and Rahimi. The defendants contended that the stricter historical-analogue test in Bruen invalidates earlier decisions. The court responded that:
   • Heller already pronounced on machineguns and felon bans.
   • Bruen did not overrule Heller; rather, it adopted Heller’s historical approach.
   • Rahimi clarified that modern laws need not be “dead ringers”; preserving flexibility suffices.
3. No factual dispute requiring an evidentiary hearing. Greely sought a hearing on whether machineguns are “dangerous and unusual.” The panel held that because Greely adopted the government’s statistics, there was no genuine factual conflict; the dispute was purely legal.
4. Waiver doctrine. Burnett explicitly withdrew his § 922(g)(3) objection. Appellate courts treat such abandonment as a waiver – total relinquishment – not mere forfeiture. Hence his constitutional argument was barred.
5. Substantive Reasonableness Review. Applying the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, the court found the district court’s 60-month sentence within the Guideline range and supported by a multipage explanation focused on § 3553(a) factors (seriousness, deterrence, community safety, defendant’s role).

C. Likely Impact of the Judgment

• Circuit Stability Post-Bruen – The opinion signals that existing Sixth Circuit authority upholding § 922(o) and § 922(g) provisions remains intact. Future district courts within the Circuit may summarily deny similar challenges without lengthy historical inquiry.
• Machinegun Litigation Nationwide – While other circuits have likewise rejected post-Bruen attacks on § 922(o), this case further tilts the balance against cert-worthy splits, diminishing prospects for Supreme Court review.
• Guidance on Evidentiary Hearings – The decision clarifies that when a defendant mounts a facial (as opposed to as-applied) Second Amendment challenge premised on undisputed facts, no evidentiary hearing is required.
• Sentencing Appeals – Burnett’s failure illustrates the high bar for reversing within-Guidelines sentences and underscores that strategic withdrawal of objections at sentencing forecloses appellate review.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit’s opinion in United States v. Greely et al. stands as a strong post-Bruen affirmation of three pillars of federal gun control: the machinegun ban, the felon-in-possession ban, and, by implication, the controlled-substance-user prohibition. Employing the court’s stare-decisis framework, the panel held fast to Heller’s “presumptively lawful” categories and confirmed that neither Bruen nor Rahimi displaced earlier precedents. The judgment not only rebuffs defendants’ Second Amendment claims but also reinforces procedural doctrines—binding-precedent, waiver, and deferential sentencing review—that guide future litigants. For practitioners, the message is unmistakable: absent Supreme Court intervention or en banc reconsideration, challenges to §§ 922(o), 922(g)(1), and (by extension) 922(g)(3) are unlikely to gain traction within the Sixth Circuit.