The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of Terry Glenn Evans for illegally possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, rejecting his constitutional challenges to the federal gun statute in a decision filed Jan. 29, 2026.
Evans pleaded guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which prohibits individuals with felony convictions from possessing firearms. His predicate felony conviction was for robbery under Texas law, making him subject to the federal prohibition.
The case originated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, where Evans was charged under case number 3:22-CR-200-1. Despite his guilty plea, Evans preserved his right to appeal the constitutional validity of the statute.
On appeal, Evans mounted a two-pronged constitutional challenge to the federal gun law. First, he argued that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violates the Commerce Clause, which grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce but has limits on federal authority over local activities.
Second, Evans challenged the statute under the Second Amendment, arguing it violated his right to keep and bear arms both on its face and as applied to his specific circumstances. His Second Amendment challenge relied heavily on the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established a new test for evaluating gun regulations.
The Bruen decision requires courts to assess whether modern gun laws are consistent with the text and historical understanding of the Second Amendment. Under this framework, the government must demonstrate that challenged regulations are analogous to historical laws that existed when the Second Amendment was ratified or during Reconstruction.
Evans argued that the federal felon-in-possession statute could not satisfy this historical test and therefore violated his Second Amendment rights. This type of challenge has become increasingly common since Bruen was decided, with defendants across the country questioning the constitutionality of various federal gun laws.
The three-judge panel that decided the case consisted of Circuit Judges Smith, Higginson, and Wilson. The court issued a per curiam opinion, meaning it was decided unanimously without a single judge taking primary authorship.
The decision was issued on the court's summary calendar, indicating it was considered a relatively straightforward case that did not require extensive briefing or oral argument. Summary calendar cases typically involve well-settled legal principles or issues that have been previously resolved by the circuit.
The opinion was not designated for publication under Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5, meaning it will have limited precedential value for future cases. Unpublished opinions can be cited but carry less weight than published decisions in establishing legal precedent.
Federal law 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is one of the most frequently prosecuted federal gun crimes. The statute prohibits nine categories of individuals from possessing firearms, including convicted felons, individuals subject to restraining orders, and those convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors.
The felon-in-possession provision has faced numerous constitutional challenges since Bruen was decided. Federal courts have generally upheld the statute, finding that historical analogues support disarming individuals convicted of serious crimes.
Evans' case represents the ongoing tension between Second Amendment rights and public safety measures designed to keep firearms away from individuals deemed dangerous by the criminal justice system. His Texas robbery conviction served as the predicate felony that subjected him to the federal prohibition.
The Fifth Circuit's jurisdiction covers Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, making it an influential court on gun rights issues in the South. The circuit has previously addressed various Second Amendment questions and generally takes a conservative approach to constitutional interpretation.
The affirmance means Evans' conviction and sentence will stand. The case file indicates he was prosecuted in the Northern District of Texas, which covers the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area and surrounding regions.
While this particular decision was unpublished, it reflects the broader judicial response to post-Bruen challenges to established gun laws. Most federal courts have found ways to uphold longstanding prohibitions on firearm possession by convicted felons, despite the new analytical framework established by the Supreme Court.
The case highlights the continuing evolution of Second Amendment jurisprudence as courts work to apply the Bruen standard to existing federal gun laws. Similar challenges are pending in courts across the country as defendants test the limits of the new constitutional framework.
For Evans, the unsuccessful appeal means his federal conviction for illegal gun possession remains intact, along with any sentence imposed by the district court. Federal felon-in-possession charges typically carry significant prison terms, particularly for defendants with extensive criminal histories.