Fifth Circuit Rules Second Amendment Does Not Protect Convicted Heroin Trafficker's Right to Possess Firearm

On June 2, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decided United States v. Squire, addressing whether the Second Amendment protects a convicted drug trafficker from being disarmed inside his home. Curtis Squire had prior convictions for heroin trafficking, firearm possession with a controlled substance, obstruction of justice, burglary, and other offenses. Police found a handgun in his home while investigating a separate shooting, leading to a felon-in-possession charge under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The court, applying the historical analysis required by the Supreme Court's Bruen decision, found that the nation's historical tradition supports disarming individuals deemed dangerous, including drug traffickers. The ruling distinguished between non-violent felonies — which may still be subject to as-applied Second Amendment challenges — and offenses involving danger or violence, which justify disarmament. The court drew on historical analogues such as the English Militia Act of 1662 and Revolutionary-era disarmament of those refusing loyalty oaths, while acknowledging that some historical precedents, such as the disarming of racial and religious minorities, are constitutionally repugnant under the Fourteenth Amendment. Legal commentators have noted ongoing debate about the appropriateness of using discriminatory historical laws as analogues in Second Amendment jurisprudence.