Fifth Circuit Strikes Down a Lifetime Firearm Ban

https://www.ammoland.com/2026/01/fifth-circuit-strikes-down-a-lifetime-firearm-ban/?utm_source=Ammoland+Subscribers&utm_campaign=c3085ef163-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6f6fac3eaa-c3085ef [login to see] 7
BACKGROUND: On December 17, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit delivered a landmark ruling in United States v. Cockerham, striking down a lifetime firearm ban imposed under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) as a violation of the Second Amendment. This decision marks a significant moment in the ongoing debate over the scope of Second Amendment rights, particularly for individuals convicted of non-violent offenses. The case centers on Edward Cockerham, whose sole predicate offense was failing to pay child support, a crime for which he served no prison time.

SUPPORTING POINTS:

1. The Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen clarified that firearm regulations must align with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation to pass constitutional muster. The Fifth Circuit’s analysis in Cockerham adheres to this framework, emphasizing that history, not fear of firearms, must guide judicial review.

2. Cockerham’s case hinged on his conviction for failing to pay child support under Mississippi law, which carried a potential five-year prison sentence but resulted in only probation. After repaying the debt and completing probation, he was later indicted for possessing a firearm based solely on this prior conviction. He argued that § 922(g)(1) violated the Second Amendment both as applied to him and on its face, alongside claims under the Commerce Clause, Equal Protection Clause, and a vagueness challenge.

3. The court applied the two-step Bruen framework. First, it confirmed that the Second Amendment’s plain text encompasses Cockerham’s possession of a firearm. The government failed to show that this activity falls outside the Second Amendment’s original scope.

4. Moving to the second step, the court examined whether § 922(g)(1)’s application to Cockerham is consistent with historical tradition...... that historical tradition does not support the categorical disarming of individuals convicted of nonviolent offenses. The court criticized § 922(g)(1) as “wildly overinclusive,” a view echoed by scholars, judges, and civil rights experts. The court concluded that permanently disarming Cockerham exceeded historical practice and violated the Second Amendment.

WHY THIS IS PERSONAL: My step son and a couple of 2nd/3rd cousins who got tied up with nonviolent marijuana charges in their teens and now in their 40's and 50's they can not exercise their 2nd amendment rights. These charges are the only marks on anotherwise spotless life record. The irony is their voting rights have been restored after going thru court ordered drug "awareness" programs but not their gun rights.