Summary
The Seventh Circuit affirmed Jose Reyna’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(k) for possessing a firearm with an obliterated serial number. Applying the Second Amendment framework from New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen as refined by United States v. Rahimi, the court assumed the regulated conduct was within the Amendment’s prima facie scope but held that § 922(k) is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The court relied on founding-era and early American practices involving the marking, inventorying, and inspection of firearms.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(k), which prohibits knowing possession of a firearm with an removed, altered, or obliterated serial number, is facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment after New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen.
- Whether the statute is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation under the Bruen framework as clarified by United States v. Rahimi.
Holdings
- The court declined to resolve the challenge solely at Bruen's first step and assumed for purposes of analysis that possession of a deserialized firearm is not categorically excluded from the prima facie scope of the Second Amendment.
- Section 922(k) is compatible with the Second Amendment because it is relevantly similar in principle to founding-era laws and practices requiring firearms to be inventoried, inspected, marked, or tracked.
- Reyna's facial challenge failed because § 922(k) is valid under the Second Amendment.
Key quotations
“We affirm the judgment, though on somewhat different reasoning.” (at 2)
“Accordingly, we hold that § 922(k) is compatible with the Second Amendment.” (at 17)
Factual background
During a traffic stop in South Bend, Indiana, police searched Reyna's vehicle after detecting marijuana and discovering that he lacked a driver's license. They found marijuana, distribution quantities of methamphetamine, and a loaded handgun with an obliterated serial number. Reyna admitted that he had scratched off the serial number and kept the firearm to protect his drug business.
Procedural history
A grand jury indicted Reyna for possession of a firearm with a removed, altered, or obliterated serial number. He pleaded guilty without a plea agreement, then moved to dismiss the indictment two days before sentencing. The district court found good cause to consider the untimely motion but denied it on the merits, concluding that possession of a deserialized firearm fell outside the Second Amendment's plain text. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, relying on the historical-tradition inquiry rather than definitively resolving the first step of the Bruen framework.