Background
Chamnap In was convicted in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas of violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which prohibits possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. In raised two constitutional challenges for the first time on appeal: that § 922(g)(1) facially violates the Second Amendment, and that it exceeds Congress’s Commerce Clause authority when the commerce element is satisfied by past interstate travel of the firearm. In acknowledged both arguments were foreclosed by existing precedent.
The government filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance, alternatively requesting an extension of time to file its appellate brief.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit granted the government’s motion for summary affirmance and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court rejected In’s Second Amendment challenge, citing United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 471-72 (5th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 2822 (2025), which established that § 922(g)(1) does not facially violate the Second Amendment.
The court likewise rejected In’s Commerce Clause arguments as foreclosed by United States v. Perryman, 965 F.3d 424, 426 (5th Cir. 2020). Because both claims were barred by settled precedent, the court determined no further briefing was necessary and denied the government’s alternative motion for a time extension as moot.
Key Takeaways
- Felon-in-possession statutes under § 922(g)(1) withstand facial Second Amendment challenges in the Fifth Circuit
- Commerce Clause constitutional challenges to firearm regulations based on interstate travel are settled law and will not be revisited
- Arguments foreclosed by binding circuit precedent will result in summary affirmance without additional briefing
Why It Matters
This decision reaffirms the constitutional foundation of felon-in-possession laws across the Fifth Circuit. It makes clear that the Diaz precedent closing Second Amendment challenges to § 922(g)(1) remains binding and will be applied consistently to bar such claims at the appellate stage.
The ruling also underscores the finality of settled constitutional doctrine in the circuit. Defendants raising foreclosed legal arguments need not expect reconsideration, and prosecutors can confidently pursue § 922(g)(1) prosecutions without concern that appellate courts will revisit these constitutional issues.