Post-Bruen Endurance of Federal Firearms Prohibitions: Sixth Circuit Affirms Constitutionality of §§ 922(o) & 922(g)(1) and Clarifies Waiver of § 922(g)(3) Challenges

Introduction

United States v. Torez Zaron Burnett (consolidated with United States v. Demarcus Greely and United States v. Omarion Branch), Nos. 23-1978/2042/2050 (6th Cir. 2025), confronts a trilogy of post-Bruen constitutional attacks on federal firearms statutes.

Demarcus Greely – challenged 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) (machine-gun ban).
Omarion Branch – challenged 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (felon-in-possession ban).
Torez Zaron Burnett – initially challenged 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) (users of controlled substances); ultimately appealed only the reasonableness of his sentence.

The Sixth Circuit, per Judge Clay, reaffirmed the constitutionality of §§ 922(o) and 922(g)(1), held Burnett’s § 922(g)(3) argument waived, and upheld the sentences imposed by the district court for the Western District of Michigan. The ruling is notable for:

Restating that District of Columbia v. Heller and subsequent doctrine already cover machine-gun and felon prohibitions.
Clarifying that New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen does not unsettle earlier Sixth-Circuit precedent (Hamblen, Williams), thereby cementing their binding force.
Underscoring waiver principles for constitutional objections withdrawn at sentencing.

Summary of the Judgment

“For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.”

The panel held:

§ 922(o) (Machine-guns): Facial challenge foreclosed by Heller; § 922(o) passes the Bruen historical-tradition test; no evidentiary hearing required.
§ 922(g)(1) (Felons): Facial challenge foreclosed by Supreme Court dicta in Heller and by binding Sixth-Circuit precedent (Frazier, Carey, Williams).
§ 922(g)(3) (Controlled-substance users): Argument waived when defendant withdrew objection; therefore unreviewable on appeal.
Sentencing: Burnett’s 60-month term was procedurally and substantively reasonable; within-Guidelines sentences remain presumptively reasonable under Vonner.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

The Court leaned heavily on the following authorities:

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) – recognized individual Second-Amendment right but expressly described machine-gun and felon bans as “long-standing” and “presumptively lawful.”
New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) – announced the modern historical-tradition test.
United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024) – clarified that regulations need not be “historical twins” to survive Bruen.
United States v. Hamblen, 591 F.3d 471 (6th Cir. 2009) – upheld § 922(o); remains binding.
United States v. Williams, 113 F.4th 637 (6th Cir. 2024) – post-Bruen affirmation of § 922(g)(1).
Other Sixth-Circuit cases: Frazier, Carey, Rose, Rayyan, Vonner.

Collectively these cases provide a seamless doctrinal chain: Heller supplies the constitutional baseline; Bruen and Rahimi refine methodology; Sixth-Circuit precedent applies them to specific statutes.

2. Legal Reasoning

Machine-guns (§ 922(o))
- Text: The right to “keep and bear Arms” is not limitless; machine-guns are not “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”
- History: Early federal and state laws (e.g., 1934 National Firearms Act) consistently restricted automatic weapons. Court finds modern ban “relevantly similar.”
- Precedent: Hamblen directly controls; panel cannot overrule it.
- Procedure: No factual dispute requiring a hearing; challenge is purely legal.
Felons (§ 922(g)(1))
- Presumptive Lawfulness: Heller dicta – “long-standing prohibitions.”
- Binding Circuit Law: Williams (2024) applied Bruen and sustained § 922(g)(1). Stare decisis bars any panel from departing absent an en banc or Supreme Court reversal.
Controlled-Substance Users (§ 922(g)(3))
- Waiver: By withdrawing his objection at sentencing, Burnett “intentionally relinquished” the issue; appellate review foreclosed.
Sentencing Reasonableness
- Procedural: District court provided a detailed, multi-page explanation tethered to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
- Substantive: Middle-of-Guidelines (60 of 57-71 months) sentence; deference under Rayyan and Vonner.

3. Impact of the Judgment

The decision cements, within the Sixth Circuit, three practical propositions:

No post-Bruen opening for machine-gun possession. Litigants cannot revive facial attacks on § 922(o) unless Hamblen is overturned en banc or by the Supreme Court.
Felon-in-possession jurisprudence remains stable. Williams plus this opinion form a robust shield against § 922(g)(1) challenges.
Strategic withdrawals at sentencing are binding. Defense counsel must preserve Second-Amendment complaints; once withdrawn, they are unreviewable except perhaps via ineffective-assistance collateral attack.

Beyond the circuit, the opinion contributes to a growing consensus that Bruen does not automatically invalidate categorical firearm bans validated—expressly or implicitly—by Heller. Expect district courts within the Sixth Circuit swiftly to dismiss similar motions without evidentiary hearings, citing the present case.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Facial vs. As-Applied Challenge: A facial challenge attacks a statute in all circumstances; an as-applied challenge targets the statute’s application to specific facts.
Machine-gun / “Switch”: 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) defines a machine-gun to include devices (“switches”) that convert a semiautomatic gun to fire continuously with one trigger pull.
Historical-Tradition Test (Bruen): Government must identify regulations from the Founding era that are “relevantly similar” to the modern law. Perfect matches are unnecessary (Rahimi).
Procedural vs. Substantive Reasonableness: Procedural focuses on correct calculation of the Guidelines and adequate explanation; substantive asks whether the sentence is “too long” in light of § 3553(a) factors.
Waiver vs. Forfeiture: Waiver is intentional relinquishment; forfeiture is failure to object. Waived issues are generally unreviewable even for plain error.

Conclusion

United States v. Burnett (consolidated) stands as a decisive reaffirmation that:

Federal bans on machine-gun possession (§ 922(o)) and felon firearm possession (§ 922(g)(1)) are constitutional even under the stricter Bruen framework.
Sixth-Circuit panels remain bound by earlier published circuit decisions until reversed en banc or by the Supreme Court.
Strategic defense choices at sentencing—such as withdrawing constitutional objections—carry heavy appellate consequences.

In the broader landscape of Second-Amendment litigation, this opinion signals the judiciary’s reluctance to disturb entrenched, safety-oriented firearm regulations and clarifies procedural guardrails for future defendants aiming to test constitutional limits.