The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a federal firearms conviction on Jan. 30, rejecting a defendant's Second Amendment challenge to felon-in-possession laws in *United States v. Chad Christopher Taylor*.
Chad Christopher Taylor was indicted by a federal grand jury for being a felon in possession of a firearm, violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The case originated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Covington under Judge David L. Bunning.
Taylor moved to dismiss the indictment on Second Amendment grounds before entering his plea. The district court denied his motion to dismiss, finding the federal statute constitutional as applied to his case. Taylor subsequently entered a guilty plea but preserved his right to appeal the constitutional ruling.
On appeal, Taylor argued that Section 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment as applied to his specific circumstances. The federal statute prohibits any person who has been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year from possessing firearms or ammunition.
The three-judge panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Davis, Ritz, and Hermandorfer, unanimously rejected Taylor's constitutional challenge. Circuit Judge Ritz authored the opinion for the court.
The court's analysis focused on whether Taylor could demonstrate that he posed no danger to public safety, a key factor in Second Amendment jurisprudence regarding firearm restrictions on convicted felons. The opinion states that "Taylor has not demonstrated that he is not dangerous," which formed the basis for affirming his conviction.
This ruling comes as federal courts continue grappling with Second Amendment challenges to various firearm restrictions following recent Supreme Court precedents. The high court's decisions in *District of Columbia v. Heller* (2008) and *New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen* (2022) have prompted renewed constitutional challenges to longstanding federal gun laws.
The Sixth Circuit's decision was designated for publication under the court's Internal Operating Procedures, indicating the panel viewed the case as having precedential value for future Second Amendment challenges to felon-in-possession statutes.
Felon-in-possession prosecutions represent a significant portion of federal firearms cases. Section 922(g)(1) carries penalties of up to 10 years in prison for first-time offenders, with enhanced sentences for repeat offenders or those with violent criminal histories.
The case highlights the ongoing tension between individual Second Amendment rights and public safety considerations in firearms regulation. While the Supreme Court has recognized an individual right to bear arms, it has also acknowledged that certain "longstanding prohibitions" on firearm possession by felons remain constitutional.
Taylor was represented by Steven N. Howe of Steven N. Howe, P.S.C., in Williamstown, Kentucky. The government was represented by Charles P. Wisdom Jr. and Carlton S. Shier IV from the U.S. Attorney's Office in Lexington, Kentucky.
The Sixth Circuit's jurisdiction includes Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. The court frequently handles Second Amendment challenges to federal firearms statutes, making this published decision potentially influential for future cases in the region.
The ruling reinforces that convicted felons face a high burden when challenging firearms restrictions on constitutional grounds. Courts typically require defendants to demonstrate they pose no ongoing danger to society, a standard that proves difficult to meet given their criminal histories.
This decision follows a pattern of federal appellate courts generally upholding felon-in-possession statutes against Second Amendment challenges, even after *Bruen*'s emphasis on historical analysis of firearms regulations.
The case number is 25-5408, and the district court case was numbered 2:24-cr-00006-1. The original criminal charges were filed in 2024, leading to the 2026 appellate decision.
Taylor's guilty plea preserved only his right to challenge the constitutional ruling on the motion to dismiss. The appellate court did not address any other aspects of his conviction or sentencing.
The opinion represents the latest judicial interpretation of how Second Amendment protections apply to individuals with criminal records, balancing constitutional rights against public safety concerns in firearms regulation.