United States v. Morgan: Fifth Circuit Confirms the “Going-Armed” Historical Analogue and Admits Predicate-Offense Facts in As-Applied Second-Amendment Challenges

1. Introduction

United States v. Morgan, No. 24-30561 (5th Cir. 2025), is the Fifth Circuit’s latest post-Bruen decision evaluating the constitutionality of the federal felon-in-possession statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Defendant-Appellant John Wayne Morgan Jr.—whose lone prior felony was for a 2021 Louisiana drive-by shooting—challenged § 922(g)(1) both facially and as applied. Bound by circuit precedent on the facial claim, the court addressed only the as-applied argument and ultimately affirmed Morgan’s conviction and 50-month sentence.

Key Issues

Whether Morgan adequately preserved an as-applied challenge below.
Whether § 922(g)(1) burdens conduct protected by “the people” under the Second Amendment after NY State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen.
Whether the Government met its burden under Bruen Step Two by identifying a sufficiently analogous historical tradition—specifically, 18th- and 19th-century “going-armed” laws—justifying disarmament of those who threaten public safety.
Whether courts may consider the factual circumstances underlying the predicate felony when deciding an as-applied Second-Amendment challenge.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Preservation. Although Morgan’s briefing was “thin,” the panel (Willett, J.) held that he preserved an as-applied challenge by expressly labeling it as such in district-court filings.
Standard of Review. The challenge therefore received de novo review.
Step One (Bruen). Relying on United States v. Diaz, the court held that convicted felons remain among “the people,” so the statute burdens conduct within the Second-Amendment’s text.
Step Two. The Government satisfied its burden by pointing to founding-era “going-armed” laws that permanently disarmed individuals who menaced others with firearms. These laws were “relevantly similar” because they (i) imposed comparable burdens (permanent arms forfeiture) and (ii) were justified by the same goal—mitigating proven dangers.
Use of Predicate-Offense Facts. The panel expressly considered the violent facts underlying Morgan’s felony (16 rifle rounds into a home) to show a demonstrated threat, rejecting Morgan’s argument that only the statutory elements matter.
Request for Remand. Denied. The district court’s error on Step One was harmless because Step Two analysis sufficed, and intervening cases (Rahimi, Diaz) supplied the controlling framework.
Holding. Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to Morgan; conviction affirmed.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) – Two-step test: (1) text; (2) historical analogue.
United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024) – Confirmed the historical-analogue methodology and upheld firearm restrictions for domestic-violence restraining orders.
United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458 (5th Cir. 2024) – Held felons are “the people” and located “going-armed” laws as relevant analogues.
Other Fifth-Circuit cases: Kimble (2025), Bullock (2024), Contreras (2025), Betancourt (2025), clarifying as-applied analyses and the role of dangerousness.

The court wove these authorities together, treating Bruen as the controlling macro-framework, Rahimi as affirmation of disarming “dangerous” individuals, and Diaz as direct circuit precedent on felon status and historical analogues.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

Preservation Focus. Citing Perez, Keelan, and circuit splits on “hazy” facial vs. as-applied distinctions, the panel decided Morgan had “pressed” his as-applied claim, so plain-error review was unnecessary.
Step One—Text. The panel reiterated Diaz: “the people” means the political community generally, including felons unless and until historically disarmed by lawful process.
Step Two—Historical Tradition.
- Relevant Predicate Felony. Because Louisiana’s illegal-use statute authorizes up to two years, it surpasses the one-year threshold, making it a § 922(g)(1) predicate.
- Use of Conduct Facts. The court looked beyond statutory elements to the violent circumstances (drive-by; 16 spent rounds) to evaluate dangerousness, following Contreras and Betancourt.
- Analogous Historical Laws. 18th- & 19th-century “going-armed” statutes criminalized riding or going armed “to the terror of the people.” Those convicted lost gun rights—mirroring § 922(g)(1)’s permanent disarmament.
- Comparable Burden & Justification. Both regimes (historic and modern) impose permanent arms forfeiture on persons who have demonstrated violent misuse. The burden (complete bar) is justified by proven threats to public safety.
- Negligence Objection Overruled. Even if Morgan’s statute reached negligent conduct, a perfect historical twin is not required; relevance and similarity suffice (Bruen at 30).
No Remand. Because the district court reached Step Two and the appellate court possessed all necessary legal materials—including post-judgment decisions—efficiency and precedent favored affirmance without further proceedings.

3.3 Impact

The decision cements two practical rules within the Fifth Circuit:

Admission of Predicate-Offense Facts. When evaluating as-applied Second-Amendment challenges, courts may look to the factual record underlying the qualifying conviction—not merely the statutory label—to assess “dangerousness” and historical similarity.
Deepened Reliance on “Going-Armed” Laws. Morgan illustrates that those statutes are not confined to brandishing cases; they also justify disarming persons previously convicted of violent gun misuse, even if the modern statute criminalizes broader conduct.

Future defendants raising as-applied challenges now face a higher evidentiary hurdle: if their predicate felony involved actual or threatened violence, Morgan strongly suggests § 922(g)(1) will survive Bruen scrutiny. The opinion also guides district courts on preservation: labeling a claim “as-applied,” even if thinly argued, can be enough to secure de novo appellate review.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Facial vs. As-Applied Challenge. A facial challenge claims a statute is always unconstitutional; an as-applied challenge admits it may be valid in many situations but unconstitutional for this defendant under these facts.
Bruen Two-Step Test.
1. Does the law burden conduct within the Second Amendment’s text (“the right of the people to keep and bear arms”)?
2. If yes, does a comparable historical tradition of regulation justify the modern restriction?
“Going-Armed” Laws. Colonial/early-republic statutes making it a crime to carry weapons in a manner that frightened or terrorized the public. Conviction often led to forfeiture of arms.
Relevantly Similar. A modern law need not be identical to historical laws; it must impose a comparable burden and be comparably justified.
Plain-Error vs. De Novo Review. If an argument wasn’t properly raised below, appellate courts ask only whether an obvious error affected outcome (plain error). If preserved, they review from scratch (de novo).

5. Conclusion

United States v. Morgan fortifies the constitutional footing of § 922(g)(1) within the Fifth Circuit by:

Re-affirming that felons are within “the people,” but may be disarmed once they manifest dangerousness.
Endorsing “going-armed” statutes as a robust historical analogue supporting permanent disarmament of violent offenders.
Sanctioning the use of predicate-offense facts—and not just abstract statutory elements—in Second-Amendment as-applied inquiries.
Clarifying preservation standards for such constitutional arguments.

The decision signals that, post-Bruen, courts will continue to uphold firearm prohibitions for individuals with demonstrated violent misuse, grounding modern public-safety statutes firmly in historical tradition. Litigants challenging § 922(g)(1) must now confront Morgan’s twin holdings on historical analogues and evidentiary scope, making successful as-applied challenges markedly more difficult in the Fifth Circuit and potentially beyond.