Summary
This Third Circuit opinion addresses a felon-in-possession challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) brought by George Pitsilides, who was convicted of bookmaking and pool selling. The court first holds that his predicate offenses do not fall within the statutory carveout for business-related crimes under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20)(A). Regarding his Second Amendment claim, the court notes that intervening Supreme Court precedent requires an individualized assessment of whether the appellant currently poses a danger to others. Because the district court applied an abrogated legal framework and the current record lacks sufficient factual development on Pitsilides' dangerousness, the court affirms in part, vacates in part, and remands for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20)(A) carve‑out applies to Pitsilides’ gambling convictions
- Whether the application of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) to Pitsilides violates the Second Amendment
Holdings
- The carve‑out does not apply because the predicate offenses lack an element requiring proof that competition or consumers were affected.
- The application is constitutional as applied because the record is insufficient to show that Pitsilides does not present a special danger of firearm misuse; the district court’s judgment is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and the case remanded for further fact‑finding.
Key quotations
“The phrase “other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices” follows an enumeration of particular types of offenses, namely those “pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, [and] restraints of trade.””
“The appropriate analysis … is not whether the challenged regulation sufficiently matches up to a historical one, but instead “whether the challenged regulation is consistent with the principles that underpin our regulatory tradition.””
Factual background
George Pitsilides, a professional poker player and gambling entrepreneur, was convicted in 1998 in Pennsylvania of conspiracy to commit pool selling and bookmaking, offenses classified as first‑degree misdemeanors. He later pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor counts of owning a place where illegal gambling occurred in Virginia in 2011. He seeks a declaratory judgment that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to him.
Procedural history
The district court granted summary judgment to the United States, applying the two‑step framework from Binderup v. Attorney General (later abrogated by Bruen). Pitsilides appealed, arguing that his predicate convictions fell within the § 921(a)(20)(A) carve‑out and that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
Remand instructions
Remand to the District Court for further proceedings and additional discovery to determine whether Pitsilides poses a special danger of misusing firearms.