Below, petitioner challenged the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which makes it a crime for a person convicted of a felony to possess a firearm. He argued that § 922(g)(1)'s permanent disarmament violates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms both facially and as applied to him. The court of appeals affirmed. It relied on a tradition of capital punishment and permanent estate forfeiture to hold that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional on its face. For the as-applied challenge, the court of appeals did not analyze whether there is a historical tradition of permanently disarming someone with a non-violent criminal history like petitioner's. Instead, it relied on a historical tradition of prohibiting people who are serving sentences, such as supervised release, from possessing a firearm—even though § 922(g)(1) does not criminalize the possession of a firearm by someone serving a sentence. The questions presented are:

1. Does § 922(g)(1) violate the Second Amendment facially?

2. To determine the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) as applied to a defendant, must courts examine whether there is a historical tradition permanently disarming a person with analogous convictions instead of relying on a historical tradition disarming someone serving a sentence?

Does § 922(g)(1) violate the Second Amendment facially, and must courts examine historical traditions of disarmament when assessing its constitutionality?