Tenth Circuit Confirms Felon Firearm Bans Remain Constitutional for Supervised Release After Bruen and Rahimi

Introduction

In United States v. Samuels, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the revocation of Lawrence Samuels, Jr.’s supervised release and the reimposition of a standard supervised-release condition prohibiting firearm possession. The case arrives at the intersection of supervised release enforcement and the Supreme Court’s evolving Second Amendment jurisprudence, particularly after New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen (2022) and United States v. Rahimi (2024).

The core issue was narrow but consequential: whether a supervised-release condition barring a felon from possessing a firearm violates the Second Amendment, and therefore cannot serve as a basis either for revocation or for reimposition. The panel, relying on binding circuit authority—most notably the Tenth Circuit’s readopted decision in Vincent v. Bondi (2025)—held that felon firearm prohibitions remain constitutional. Because Mr. Samuels did not object to the condition in the district court, the panel reviewed for plain error and found none.

Background

Mr. Samuels pleaded guilty in 2004 to possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance (21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(B)(iii)). Following a sentence commutation, he began supervised release in May 2018. A standard condition of his release prohibited possession of firearms, destructive devices, or dangerous weapons.

In September 2022, while on supervised release, Mr. Samuels was stopped for speeding in Texas while driving a rental car. He consented to a search; officers found a handgun hidden in a sock in the engine bay. A petition alleged violations of (1) the mandatory condition not to commit a federal, state, or local crime and (2) the standard condition not to possess a firearm. At the initial revocation hearing, the district court applied a “sole-occupancy” standard to find constructive possession and revoked his release. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit reversed because the court should have applied the “joint-occupancy” constructive-possession standard, given the rental-car context and the firearm’s location in the engine compartment. On remand, applying the correct standard, the district court again found constructive possession and imposed time served plus an additional two years of supervised release, including the firearm prohibition.

On this second appeal, Mr. Samuels did not challenge the constructive-possession finding. Instead, he argued that the Second Amendment renders the firearm condition unconstitutional, thereby undermining both the revocation and the reimposition of the condition.

Summary of the Opinion

The Tenth Circuit affirmed. Because Mr. Samuels did not object below to the firearm condition, the court reviewed for plain error. The panel held there was no error, much less plain error, because binding circuit precedent—Vincent v. Bondi (2025), readopted after remand from the Supreme Court in light of Rahimi—confirms that prohibitions on felons possessing firearms are constitutional under the Second Amendment. Consequently, the revocation based on that condition and the reimposition of the condition were proper.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

  • United States v. Mike (10th Cir. 2011): Establishes the plain-error framework: the defendant must show (1) error, (2) that is plain, (3) affecting substantial rights, and (4) seriously affecting the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. The panel used this standard because Mr. Samuels did not object to the condition below.
  • United States v. Williams (10th Cir. 2024): Confirms that legal questions in supervised-release revocation are reviewed de novo. The court applied de novo review to the legal question, layered atop plain-error scrutiny due to the lack of objection.
  • United States v. McCane (10th Cir. 2009): Held that the felon-in-possession ban is constitutional, relying on District of Columbia v. Heller’s characterization of “longstanding” firearm prohibitions (including on felons) as “presumptively lawful.” McCane remains the Tenth Circuit’s foundational authority on felon disarmament.
  • New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen (U.S. 2022): Established the history-and-tradition test for modern firearm regulations. Some litigants argued Bruen undermined felon-disarmament precedents. The Tenth Circuit, however, held in Vincent that Bruen did not abrogate McCane.
  • United States v. Rahimi (U.S. 2024): The Supreme Court upheld 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) (domestic-violence restraining order) and clarified how to conduct analogical reasoning under Bruen. Following the Supreme Court’s GVR (grant, vacate, and remand) in Vincent v. Garland, the Tenth Circuit revisited its decision in light of Rahimi and readopted its prior opinion.
  • Vincent v. Garland (10th Cir. 2024), vacated and remanded; readopted as Vincent v. Bondi (10th Cir. 2025): The Tenth Circuit reaffirmed that Bruen did not disturb its precedent upholding felon-disarmament laws. After Rahimi, the court expressly readopted the earlier analysis, concluding Rahimi reinforced, rather than undermined, the constitutional footing of disarming those outside the community’s law-abiding, responsible class.
  • United States v. Swan (10th Cir. 2024): Cited to underscore that the Tenth Circuit’s post-Bruen posture continues to recognize the constitutionality of felon-disarmament.
  • United States v. Samuels (10th Cir. 2023) (prior appeal): Not controlling on the Second Amendment issue, but important procedurally. The court previously reversed the initial revocation because the district court used an incorrect constructive-possession standard (“sole occupancy” instead of “joint occupancy”). On remand, the district court applied the proper standard and again found a violation—unchallenged in this appeal.

In sum, these authorities collectively dictated the outcome. Vincent v. Bondi binds Tenth Circuit panels and squarely holds that felon firearm prohibitions survive Bruen and Rahimi. With Vincent controlling, the Samuels panel had no room to adopt Mr. Samuels’s constitutional theory.

Legal Reasoning

The court proceeded in two steps. First, it identified the applicable standard of review: because Mr. Samuels did not object to the firearm condition in the district court, the panel reviewed for plain error under Mike, while recognizing de novo review for underlying legal questions (Williams).

Second, the panel addressed the constitutional question. It acknowledged that supervised- release conditions must comport with the Constitution. The decisive point was that, under binding circuit law—specifically Vincent v. Bondi—felon firearm bans remain constitutional post-Bruen and post-Rahimi. Because the governing law in the Tenth Circuit resolves the constitutional question against Mr. Samuels, there was no error at all in relying on the firearm condition to revoke supervised release and to reimpose it. Without error, the first prong of plain error fails, and the analysis ends.

The panel also noted that Mr. Samuels effectively brought this challenge to preserve it for potential en banc or Supreme Court review. That strategic preservation underscores that, at the panel level, Vincent forecloses his argument.

Impact

The decision’s practical significance is straightforward but important:

  • Continuity for supervised-release practice: District courts within the Tenth Circuit may continue to impose and enforce standard firearm-prohibition conditions for felons on supervised release. Revocations premised on such conditions remain legally sound under current circuit law.
  • Second Amendment challenges at the panel level are foreclosed: Bruen and Rahimi do not displace McCane as interpreted by Vincent; panel decisions remain bound to uphold felon firearm prohibitions. Defendants seeking to challenge such conditions must either pursue en banc or Supreme Court review or raise distinct, case-specific arguments not foreclosed by Vincent.
  • Plain-error lesson for litigants: Failure to object to supervised-release conditions in the district court places a heavy burden on appeal. Counsel should object contemporaneously if they intend to raise constitutional challenges.
  • Harmonization with Rahimi: Rahimi’s history-and-tradition framework, as read by the Tenth Circuit, supports disarming those who are not “law-abiding, responsible citizens,” which includes convicted felons. Samuels reflects how lower courts operationalize Rahimi to confirm long-accepted categories of firearm regulation.

While this order and judgment is nonprecedential by rule, it is fully aligned with, and functionally implements, binding circuit precedent. It therefore provides clear guidance to probation offices, district judges, and practitioners across the Tenth Circuit.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Supervised release and its conditions: After prison, a defendant may serve a term of supervised release subject to conditions. Violating a condition can result in revocation and additional sanctions. By statute, conditions must be lawful, reasonably related to statutory sentencing goals, and impose no greater deprivation of liberty than necessary. A standard condition prohibits felons from possessing firearms—mirroring the general federal ban on felon firearm possession.
  • Revocation standard vs. criminal conviction: Revocation proceedings are not new prosecutions; the government typically needs to prove a violation by a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, the key violation was possession of a firearm contrary to a condition of release.
  • Constructive possession and “joint occupancy”: When someone does not have a gun on their person, the law may still deem them in possession if they knowingly have the power and intent to exercise control over it (constructive possession). In spaces shared with others (joint occupancy), courts require a closer nexus—mere presence or proximity is not enough; there must be evidence of knowledge and access. The Tenth Circuit previously held that joint-occupancy analysis applied to Mr. Samuels’s rented vehicle, and the district court, on remand, found constructive possession under that standard (a finding not challenged in this appeal).
  • Plain error review: On appeal, if the defendant did not object in the district court, the appellate court asks whether there was an obvious legal error affecting substantial rights and undermining the fairness of the proceedings. If controlling law forecloses the argument—as here—there is no “error,” and the appeal fails at the first step.
  • Bruen and Rahimi in a nutshell: Bruen requires that modern gun regulations be consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Rahimi clarified that this analogical inquiry is not a straitjacket; legislatures may regulate individuals found to be dangerous or non-law-abiding in ways that are consistent with historical practice. Courts in the Tenth Circuit read these cases as compatible with felon-disarmament laws.
  • Nonprecedential orders and judgments: This decision is designated as nonbinding precedent under Tenth Circuit rules, but it may be cited for persuasive value. Its force here derives from its application of the binding decision in Vincent v. Bondi.

Conclusion

United States v. Samuels reaffirms a clear principle in the Tenth Circuit: firearms prohibitions for convicted felons remain constitutional after Bruen and Rahimi, and that rule fully applies to supervised-release conditions. Because Vincent v. Bondi controls, Mr. Samuels’s Second Amendment challenge could not prevail, and—given his failure to object below—there was no plain error in revoking his supervised release and reimposing the firearm condition.

The decision offers practical certainty: district courts in the Tenth Circuit can continue to impose and enforce firearm-prohibition conditions for felons on supervised release. Defendants aiming to unsettle that rule must seek relief en banc or from the Supreme Court. In the broader legal landscape, Samuels shows how post-Rahimi doctrine is being applied on the ground: longstanding felon-disarmament regimes remain intact, and supervised- release enforcement continues accordingly.