The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a federal law prohibiting possession of firearms with obliterated serial numbers, rejecting a defendant's Second Amendment challenge based on the Supreme Court's recent decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen.
The case, United States v. Jose Reyna, centered on Jose Reyna's conviction for possessing a firearm with an obliterated serial number in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(k). After pleading guilty, Reyna moved to dismiss the indictment just before sentencing, arguing that the federal statute unconstitutionally infringed his Second Amendment rights under the new constitutional framework established in Bruen.
The Supreme Court's 2022 Bruen decision established a new two-step test for evaluating gun regulations. The court held that "when the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."
Reyna's challenge came after he had already pleaded guilty and was deemed untimely under the district court's scheduling order. However, U.S. District Judge Robert L. Miller Jr. of the Northern District of Indiana found good cause to entertain the belated motion. The district court ultimately denied Reyna's constitutional challenge on the merits.
Judge Miller rejected Reyna's claim at the first step of the Bruen analysis, holding that the Second Amendment's text does not cover possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number. This determination meant the court did not need to proceed to the second step of analyzing whether the regulation aligns with historical tradition.
On appeal, Reyna asked the Seventh Circuit to reverse the district court's decision. The three-judge panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Diane S. Sykes, Amy J. St. Eve, and John Z. Lee, heard oral arguments on Nov. 1, 2023, and issued their decision on Jan. 28, 2026.
Writing for the court, Circuit Judge Sykes affirmed the district court's judgment but employed somewhat different reasoning. The appeals court acknowledged that Bruen's first step is explicitly framed as a "plain-text inquiry" but noted the challenges inherent in applying this standard.
"Like most other provisions in the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment is expressed in broad and highly general language; we're not confident that the text alone resolves this case," the court wrote. Despite this textual uncertainty, the panel agreed that § 922(k) does not violate the Constitution.
The decision represents an important early application of the Bruen framework by federal appeals courts. Since the Supreme Court issued Bruen in June 2022, lower courts have grappled with how to apply the new historical tradition test to various firearm regulations. The decision has prompted numerous constitutional challenges to existing gun laws across the federal court system.
The case highlights the ongoing evolution of Second Amendment jurisprudence following Bruen. The Supreme Court's decision marked a significant shift from the previous two-step test established in District of Columbia v. Heller, which allowed courts to apply intermediate scrutiny to gun regulations that did not severely burden the Second Amendment right.
Under the new Bruen standard, courts must determine whether challenged conduct falls within the Second Amendment's plain text and, if so, whether the government can justify the regulation through historical analogues. This approach has proven challenging for courts as they attempt to match modern firearms regulations with historical precedents from the founding era and Reconstruction period.
The Seventh Circuit's decision in Reyna adds to a growing body of post-Bruen case law addressing how courts should apply the new constitutional framework. The ruling suggests that even under the more restrictive Bruen test, certain longstanding federal firearms regulations may survive constitutional scrutiny.
Federal law has required serial numbers on commercially manufactured firearms since the Gun Control Act of 1968. Section 922(k) specifically prohibits possessing firearms with removed, obliterated, or altered serial numbers, making such possession a federal crime punishable by up to five years in prison.
The case originated in the Northern District of Indiana's South Bend Division, where Reyna faced charges in 2021. The timing of his constitutional challenge, coming after Bruen but before his sentencing, illustrates how the Supreme Court's decision has prompted defendants to reassess previously accepted gun regulations.
The Seventh Circuit's decision is likely to influence how other federal appeals courts address similar Second Amendment challenges to firearms regulations in the post-Bruen legal landscape. The ruling demonstrates that while Bruen has changed the analytical framework for gun cases, it does not automatically invalidate all existing firearms laws.