Case Explained: USA V. RUSSELL

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-23 Docket: 1:24-cr-00135-SPW-1 The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Cameron Lee Russell Jr.’s motion to dismiss an indictment for receiving a firearm while under felony indictment in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(n). The court reviewed the denial de novo and rejected Russell’s arguments that the statute requires an individualized assessment of dangerousness, that non-violent obstruction charges do not justify disarmament under historical tradition, or that the invalidity of his predicate indictment renders the federal gun law unconstitutional as applied to him. The court held that the Second Amendment does not require legislatures to perform an individualized determination of dangerousness for each person in a class; rather, historical tradition permits the categorical disarmament of groups deemed dangerous by Congress. Citing *United States v. Duarte* and *United States v. Stennerson*, the panel confirmed that § 922(n) reflects a congressional judgment that those facing felony indictment are presumed to pose a special risk of misusing firearms, a temporary infringement well-supported by historical precedent. Furthermore, relying on *Lewis v. United States*, the court ruled that federal gun laws focus on the mere fact of an indictment rather than its reliability or ultimate validity. The court determined that Russell was required to challenge his state indictment before obtaining a firearm and cannot collaterally attack the indictment’s flaws as a defense to the federal charge, noting that recent Supreme Court Second Amendment jurisprudence does not undermine this principle. As a result of the affirmation, the conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(n) stands, and the district court’s order denying the motion to dismiss remains in effect. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.