NRA, SAF Urge 5th Circuit: Only Dangerous Felons Should Lose Guns
The NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation told the Fifth Circuit on October 21 that a felony conviction alone should not trigger a lifetime firearm ban. In an amicus brief filed in United States v. Cordova, the two groups ask the court to adopt a "dangerousness" standard for challenges to the federal ban on gun possession by felons under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). They support neither side. They want the court to write the test. The case returned to the Fifth Circuit after the court granted rehearing en banc and vacated an earlier panel ruling. Under the groups' proposal, the government would have to prove a person is dangerous before disarming him. A felony on the record would not be enough, and that includes nonviolent offenders who finished their sentences.
Key Details
The brief lands at a pivotal point in the case. Here are the core points:
- Filing date: October 21, 2026, submitted by the Second Amendment Foundation and the NRA.
- Case: United States v. Cordova, pending before the full Fifth Circuit after en banc rehearing was granted.
- Proposed standard: Disarmament only for persons with a proven proclivity for violence or who pose a threat to the government.
- Historical argument: Colonial and Founding-era militia laws required able-bodied men to keep arms and included no carve-out for prior nonviolent convictions. Some statutes expressly shielded criminals' arms from seizure.
- Target of criticism: The Fifth Circuit's recent reasoning that Founding-era capital punishment for certain crimes justifies permanently disarming every felon.
- Core rebuttal: Many felonies were never capital offenses, and no tradition supports keeping sentence-completed felons disarmed for life.
- Constitutional parity: Rights in the Bill of Rights are not forfeited because an offense once carried a death sentence. The brief argues that using capital eligibility as the test would give the Second Amendment worse treatment than other rights, contrary to the Supreme Court's rule that it is not a second-class right.
SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut framed the position in a news release. He said no historical tradition permanently strips arms from peaceable citizens, including nonviolent felons who completed their sentences. He urged the court to make dangerousness, not the existence of a felony conviction, the controlling standard.
Background
Section 922(g)(1) bars anyone convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year in prison from possessing firearms or ammunition. Congress wrote it without any sunset or individualized review in the statute itself. For decades, the main escape valve was relief from disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 925(c), which lay dormant for years. Courts then had to decide whether the ban fit the Second Amendment.
The Supreme Court set the framework in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022). Gun laws must match the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. In United States v. Rahimi (2024), the Court upheld a different federal disarmament statute and stressed that disarming people who pose a credible threat of violence fits that tradition. The Third Circuit, sitting en banc in Range v. Attorney General, ruled for a man with a nonviolent food-stamp fraud conviction and found the government had not shown a historical basis for his disarmament. The Fifth Circuit took a different path, reasoning from Founding-era capital punishment. The Cordova case is the vehicle for that debate now.
Why It Matters for Gun Owners
Any person with a felony conviction in Texas, Louisiana, or Mississippi falls under the Fifth Circuit's rules. The court's decision will set the rule for federal district courts in those states. Men and women who finished probation on a decades-old nonviolent felony, such as a drug offense, check fraud, or a property crime, face the biggest exposure. Many of them do not know they can still win a Second Amendment challenge.
The practical question is who carries the burden. Under the current felon-ban framework in much of the circuit, a defendant or plaintiff must fight the statute in court case by case. A dangerousness standard would shift the focus to the government's proof about the individual. That means a prosecutor would need to show something about the person's conduct and threat level, not only a conviction record. If you hold a felony and want a firearm, talk to a lawyer who handles restoration and as-applied challenges. Do not guess about your status. A new possession charge can carry up to 15 years under federal law.
DownRange Analysis
The brief's historical case is strong. The Fifth Circuit's capital-punishment argument proves too much. Death eligibility at the Founding covered offenses like murder, treason, and certain property crimes. Using it as the test for life-long disarmament ignores the fact that the Founders never built a permanent disarmament system for sentence-completed offenders. Under Bruen, the government must produce a closely analogous tradition. Capital eligibility looks like a thin analogue for a stolen-car conviction from 1998.
Watch the court's next move. A dangerousness test would satisfy Rahimi and give judges a workable rule. It would also invite litigation over what "dangerous" means and who decides. Gun owners should document rehabilitation, keep court records, and track any petitions for relief. If you live in the Fifth Circuit and your record is nonviolent, now is the time to get your paperwork in order and consult counsel. Do not treat the brief as a win. It is an argument, and the court has not ruled.
