United States of America v. Joshua Michael Faust

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1042
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Joshua Michael Faust
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Eastern
____________
Submitted: December 16, 2024
Filed: January 10, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Joshua Faust pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, see 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), preserving his right to appeal the district court’s1 denial of his
motion to dismiss the felon-in-possession charge. He was sentenced to 84 months’
1 The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge, United States District Judge
for the Northern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
imprisonment. Faust appeals, arguing that the felon-in-possession statute,
§ 922(g)(1), violates the Second Amendment both on its face and as applied to him.
Precedent forecloses Faust’s arguments. Following the Supreme Court’s
decision in United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024), we held that “[t]he
longstanding prohibition on possession of firearms by felons is constitutional,”
United States v. Cunningham, 114 F.4th 671, 675 (8th Cir. 2024), and that there is
“no need for felony-by-felony litigation regarding the constitutionality of
§ 922(g)(1),” United States v. Jackson, 110 F.4th 1120, 1125 (8th Cir. 2024).
Accordingly, Faust’s facial and as-applied constitutional challenges to § 922(g)(1)
fail.2
Affirmed.
______________________________
2 Even if Faust could bring an as-applied challenge, he would not succeed. His
lengthy criminal record includes over fifteen convictions, including four assaults
(two with a dangerous weapon), disorderly conduct, and violation of a protective
order. That record, combined with his history of noncompliance while incarcerated
and while subject to probation, demonstrates that Faust “pose[s] a credible threat to
the physical safety of others.” See Rahimi, 602 U.S. at 700; see also United States
v. Jackson, 85 F.4th 468, 470-72 (8th Cir. 2023) (Stras, J., dissenting from denial of
reh’g en banc) (explaining that, based on Founding-era history, the government can
strip “dangerous” individuals of their firearms).

-- 2 of 2 --