“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.
…
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. The district court denied his motions to dismiss, but the Fifth Circuit reversed, focusing on the as-applied Second Amendment challenge.

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. Moving to the second step, the court examined whether § 922(g)(1)’s application to Cockerham is consistent with historical tradition. This step required identifying a “relevantly similar” historical analogue, assessed by the manner and basis on which the regulation burdens the right to armed self-defense.

The government analogized Cockerham’s offense to theft, citing United States v. Diaz, in which permanent disarmament was upheld as a consequence of a theft conviction, based on severe Founding-era punishments such as capital punishment and estate forfeiture. However, the court rejected this analogy. At the Founding, debtors’ prisons existed, but debtors were released upon repayment, unlike thieves, who remained incarcerated even if stolen goods were returned. The government conceded this distinction during oral arguments, undermining its position. Since Cockerham had fully paid his child support debt by the time he possessed the firearm, no historical justification supported his disarmament, let alone a lifetime ban.
…”

ht* tps://www.ammoland.com/2026/01/fifth-circuit-strikes-down-a-lifetime-firearm-ban/