11-349-cr
United States v. Bogle
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
August Term, 2012
(Argued: February 6, 2013 Decided: May 23, 2013)
Docket No. 11-349-cr
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
— v. —
GARY BOGLE,
Defendant-Appellant.
B e f o r e:
WALKER, KATZMANN, and LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
__________________
Defendant Gary Bogle challenges his conviction for possessing a firearm and body
armor as a convicted felon, arguing that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violates his Second
Amendment right to keep and bear arms. We hold that § 922(g)(1) does not violate
Bogle’s Second Amendment rights, and AFFIRM his conviction.
1
NICHOLAS J. PINTO, New York, New York, for Defendant-Appellant.
TODD KAMINSKY, Assistant United States Attorney (Jo Ann M. Navickas and
Tali Farhadian, Assistant United States Attorneys, on the brief), for Loretta E.
Lynch, United States Attorney, Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, New
York, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM:
Gary Bogle appeals his conviction for possessing a firearm and body armor as a
convicted felon. The relevant facts are set forth in the summary order disposing of the
majority of Bogle’s arguments. We write only to address whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)
violates the Second Amendment, an issue that we have not yet decided by precedential
opinion.
Bogle argues that § 922(g)(1), which makes it unlawful for a convicted felon to
possess a firearm in or affecting interstate commerce, violates his Second Amendment
right to keep and bear arms. Bogle relies on recent Supreme Court opinions developing a
more expansive interpretation of the Amendment. But in both of these opinions, the
Supreme Court clearly emphasized that recent developments in Second Amendment
jurisprudence should not “be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the
possession of firearms by felons.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626
(2008); see also McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3047 (2010) (“We made
it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory
measures as prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons . . . . We repeat those
2
assurances here.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). We therefore join
every other circuit to consider the issue in affirming that § 922(g)(1) is a constitutional
restriction on the Second Amendment rights of convicted felons.1
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
1
See United States v. Moore, 666 F.3d 313, 318-19 (4th Cir. 2012); United States v.
Barton, 633 F.3d 168, 175 (3d Cir. 2011); United States v. Joos, 638 F.3d 581, 586 (8th Cir.
2011); United States v. Rozier, 598 F.3d 768, 771 (11th Cir. 2010); United States v. Williams,
616 F.3d 685, 693-94 (7th Cir. 2010); United States v. Vongxay, 594 F.3d 1111, 1115 (9th
Cir. 2010); United States v. Carey, 602 F.3d 738, 741 (6th Cir. 2010); United States v.
McCane, 573 F.3d 1037, 1047 (10th Cir. 2009); United States v. Anderson, 559 F.3d 348,
352 (5th Cir. 2009).
3