The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting en banc, held that two Pennsylvania DUI convictions do not historically justify a lifetime federal firearms prohibition under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The full court refused to let a felony label do constitutional work that history will not support. Pennsylvania may treat DUI as a felony. That classification does not, by itself, extinguish the right to keep and bear arms for life.
In a companion en banc ruling the same day, a divided Third Circuit held that a terroristic-threats felony is enough on its face to disarm someone under the same statute. The court split as-applied felon-in-possession challenges along violent versus nonviolent lines. Nonviolent predicates must be historically justified. A terroristic-threats conviction, the divided court held, meets that standard on its face.
The decisions issued October 13, 2026. En banc materials include United States v. James Bost and United States v. Williams. Both address whether § 922(g)(1) may impose a lifetime ban after a particular state felony. The statute reaches any crime punishable by more than one year in prison. The Third Circuit has now held that a pair of Pennsylvania DUIs cannot carry that consequence.
Federal prosecutors have long treated every § 922(g)(1) predicate as interchangeable. The en banc court rejected that approach for DUI. Two Pennsylvania DUI convictions cannot support a lifetime gun ban because history does not justify it. The Second Amendment is not a privilege Congress may revoke by reciting a maximum sentence. The Constitution outranks the Code.
Violent Predicates Remain a Facial Basis for Disarmament
The companion holding leaves the federal ban intact on its face for terroristic threats. A divided court refused to treat that felony as historically inadequate. As-applied challenges in this circuit will now turn on the character of the predicate offense. Two Pennsylvania DUI convictions are not enough. Terroristic threats, on the face of the conviction, are.
The rulings control felon-in-possession prosecutions in the Third Circuit. They do not rewrite § 922(g)(1) for the rest of the country. They do require the government, in this circuit, to defend a lifetime ban with history when the predicate is nonviolent. A terroristic-threats felony does not receive that as-applied off-ramp under the divided en banc decision.
Judges swear an oath to the Constitution, not to a charging statute. The en banc Third Circuit applied that oath and reached different results for DUI and for terroristic threats. Nonviolent felons now have a live as-applied path in this circuit. Lifetime disarmament is not the default. It is the exception that history and the Second Amendment must support.
References
- https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-appeals-court-limits-felon-gun-ban-allows-violent-cases-2026-10-13/
- https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/third-circuit-upholds-gun-ban-for-those-with-violent-felonies
- https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2026/10/13/third-circuit-upholds-felon-gun-ban-conviction-but-opens-door-to-more-2a-challenges-n1234119
- https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/gdvzgbregpw/10132026second_williams.pdf
- https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/5472/attachments/original/1791902620/United_States_v_Bost_En_Banc_Opinion.pdf?1791902620
- https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69870914/united-states-v-james-bost/