Jason Daniel Carbajal v. United States

Below, Petitioner Jason Daniel Carbajal challenged the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which makes it a crime for a person convicted of a felony to possess a firearm. He argued that § 922(g)(1)’s permanent disarmament violates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms both facially and as applied to him. The court of appeals affirmed. It relied on a tradition of capital punishment and permanent estate forfeiture to hold that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional on its face. For the as-applied challenge, the court of appeals held that colonial-era laws punished theft severely, so § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to Carbajal, who has a prior aggravated robbery conviction, even though none of his prior convictions involved misuse of a firearm. The questions presented are:

1. Does § 922(g)(1) violate the Second Amendment facially?

2. Does § 922(g)(1) violate the Second Amendment as applied to individuals with convictions for offenses that did not involve the misuse of firearms or establish a credible threat of such misuse?