Scope of Range Limited: Felons with Extensive Criminal Histories Can't Use As-Applied Second Amendment Challenges to 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1)

Introduction

The Third Circuit’s decision in United States v. Rufus Williams clarifies the parameters for as-applied Second Amendment challenges to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Representing himself at trial, Rufus Williams—a convicted felon with multiple controlled-substance and endangerment offenses—was found guilty of drug distribution charges and unlawful possession of firearms by a felon. On appeal he mounted a series of challenges, chief among them a Second Amendment argument under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022) and this Circuit’s recent Range v. Attorney General (2024). Williams argued:

§ 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to him;
The evidence was insufficient to support conspiracy and distribution convictions;
The jury instructions and evidentiary rulings were erroneous;
Sentencing enhancements were improperly applied.

The Third Circuit panel—Restrepo, Montgomery-Reeves, and Ambro, JJ.—affirmed Williams’ convictions and 168-month sentence, finding every challenge either waived, lacking merit, or subject only to non-reversible plain-error review.

Summary of the Judgment

Key holdings:

As-applied Second Amendment challenge: Williams’ § 922(g)(1) challenge fails under the Bruen two-step framework and is distinguishable from Range because Williams’ extensive criminal history places him outside the narrow scope of that decision.
Sufficiency of the evidence: Viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, a rational jury could find Williams guilty of drug distribution and conspiracy based on over 160 grams of packaged cocaine and coded wiretap communications.
Jury instructions: No error in refusing a narrative “theory of defense” instruction, nor in using standard Third Circuit conspiracy and § 922(g) instructions.
Evidentiary rulings: Williams’ voluntary withdrawal of his request to admit hundreds of phone recordings foreclosed any error; lay-witness and expert-testimony rulings were correct.
Sentencing enhancements: Under advisory Guidelines, the District Court properly found by preponderance that Williams possessed at least eight firearms; no jury determination was required.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Bruen (2022): Governs challenges to firearm regulations under the Second Amendment via a two-step, historical-tradition test.
Range (3d Cir. 2024): A narrow as-applied invalidation of § 922(g)(1) for a single, minor felony offender with decades of law-abiding conduct; distinguished here by Williams’ lengthy felony record.
Desu (3d Cir. 2022) & Kolodesh (3d Cir. 2015): Plain-error review applies to issues first raised after trial, including late constitutional objections.
Bailey (3d Cir. en banc 2016) & Caraballo-Rodriguez (3d Cir. 2013): Standards for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence on appeal.
Sussman (3d Cir. 2013) & Hoffecker (3d Cir. 2008): Delegation of jury-instruction content; no right to narrative statements of defense theory.
Johnson (1997): Clarifies “plain error” must be “obvious under current law.”
Grier (3d Cir. en banc 2007): Judges may find Guidelines fact enhancements by a preponderance of the evidence; jury unanimity not required for sentencing facts.
Napolitan (3d Cir. 2014): Government bears preponderance burden at sentencing for enhancements.

Legal Reasoning

1. Waiver and Plain-Error Standards. Williams never raised his Second Amendment challenge before trial or in a timely Rule 12(b)(3) motion; the District Court correctly found no good cause to excuse his failure. Even if not waived, the challenge is subject to plain-error review and fails on the merits.

2. As-Applied Second Amendment Test. Under Bruen, the Government must show that § 922(g)(1) is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Williams’ heavy felony record (cocaine distribution, child endangerment, other drug convictions) places him beyond the narrow exemption recognized in Range—which involved a single minor felony offender. The panel held no plain error in rejecting Williams’ claim.

3. Sufficiency of the Evidence. The record showed 124.9 g of powder cocaine, 39 g of crack cocaine, 241 distribution-ready baggies, eleven firearms discovered during a warrant search, and wiretap communications in coded language arranging drug deals. Viewed in the Government’s favor, a rational jury could convict on Counts 1–3 (drug charges) and Count 4 (§ 922(g)(1)).

4. Jury Instructions and Defense Narrative. Third Circuit Model Criminal Instruction 6.21.846B (“at least one other alleged conspirator”) is accurate and standard; a defendant has no entitlement to a proffered six-page factual narrative. The absence of a juror-level reminder of the Second Amendment when instructing on § 922(g) does not constitute plain error.

5. Evidentiary Discretion. Williams abandoned his own request to admit roughly 600 phone calls as “completion” exhibits and never articulated a basis for their admission. The District Court’s exclusion was self-inflicted, not error. Lay-witness and expert-testimony rulings complied with Stadtmauer (2010) and Fulton (2016).

6. Sentencing Enhancements. Grouping under U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(c) made the firearm count’s adjusted offense level controlling. Under Grier and Napolitan, the judge may determine firearm-quantity enhancements by a preponderance of evidence—no jury unanimity required. The finding that Williams possessed at least eight firearms was supported by trial evidence.

Impact

This decision

Reaffirms the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) as applied to serious felons.
Limits Range to its narrow facts, discouraging broad as-applied Second Amendment challenges by repeat offenders.
Emphasizes the need to raise constitutional objections in a timely pre-trial motion to avoid waiver.
Confirms that judges retain discretion to admit evidence and craft jury instructions within model frameworks.
Affirms the advisory Guidelines regime: sentencing facts need not be submitted to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Bruen Framework: Two‐step test requiring historical tradition analysis for firearm regulations.
As-Applied Challenge: A claim that a law is unconstitutional only as applied to a particular individual’s circumstances.
Waiver vs. Plain Error: Failure to object pre-trial ordinarily waives the issue; plain error review applies only if not waived and must be “obvious.”
Rule 29 Motion: A request for acquittal at the close of the government’s evidence; failure to renew carries waiver consequences.
Preponderance of the Evidence (Sentencing): The standard by which judges find facts (e.g., number of firearms) under the advisory Guidelines.

Conclusion

United States v. Rufus Williams stands as a comprehensive affirmation of § 922(g)(1) against as-applied Second Amendment challenges where the defendant has a substantial felony record. The opinion illustrates the importance of timely constitutional objections, the continued vitality of advisory Guidelines factfinding, and the narrow reach of Range. Future litigants should take heed: serious felons face a steep uphill battle in using the Second Amendment to disarm § 922(g)(1) convictions, and failure to engage procedural rules early can result in waiver or non-reversible plain-error review.