USA v. White

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 26-CR-54-JFH
TREVOR LEE WHITE,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Trevor Lee White’s Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”) for
Failure to State an Offense. Dkt. No. 33. The United States of America (“Government”) opposes
the Motion. Dkt. No. 34. For the following reasons, Defendant’s Motion is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
On April 15, 2026, a federal grandy jury indicted Defendant with Felon in Possession of
Firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) & 924(a)(8). Dkt. No. 2. According to the
Indictment, Defendant possessed a firearm and ammunition on July 27, 2024, after previously
being convicted of a felony. His trial is currently set for October 5, 2026. Dkt. No. 32.
AUTHORITY AND ANALYSIS
Defendant moves for dismissal of his Indictment, arguing that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) is facially
unconstitutional under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S.Ct. 2111 (2022),
Dkt. No. 33 at 2. Defendant acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Tenth Circuit
precedent, but he files his Motion to preserve the record for future appeal. Id. at 1.
In 2009, the Tenth Circuit held § 922(g)(1)—which prohibits individuals with felony
convictions from possessing firearms— is a constitutional restriction on a convicted felon’s Second
Amendment rights. United States v. McCane, 573 F.3d 1037, 1047 (10th Cir. 2009). Over a decade
6:26-cr-00054-JFH Document 35 Filed in ED/OK on 06/05/26 Page 1 of 3

2
later, in 2022, the United States Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc.
v. Bruen, which concluded that the Second Amendment prohibits a state form requiring gun owners
to demonstrate a special need to obtain a concealed carry license to carry a firearm in public. 597
U.S. 1, 71 (2022). In doing so, the Supreme Court set out a two-step test for determining whether
legislation regulating the use or possession of firearms violates the Second Amendment. First, a
court considering such a challenge must determine whether the Second Amendment's “plain text
covers an individual's conduct.” Id. at 24. If so, “the Constitution presumptively protects that
conduct,” and “the government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is
consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Id.
Then, in 2024, the Supreme Court applied that test in United States v. Rahimi to § 922(g)(8),
which prohibits individuals subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a
firearm. 602 U.S. 680 (2024). The Court ultimately concluded that restriction passed constitutional
muster. Id. at 702. In doing so, the Court recognized that it had “never established a categorical
rule that the Constitution prohibits regulations that forbid firearm possession in the home. In fact,
[the Court’s] opinion [in Heller] stated that many such prohibitions, like those on the possession
of firearms by ‘felons and the mentally ill,’ are ‘presumptively lawful.’” Id. at 699 (quoting
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626 (2008)).
Most recently, in 2025, the Tenth Circuit in Vincent v. Bondi explained that these two
Supreme Court cases did not abrogate McCane’s prior holding that § 922(g)(1) is a constitutional
restriction on a convicted felon’s Second Amendment rights. 127 F.4th 1263, 1266 (10th Cir.
2025), cert. denied, 224 L. Ed. 2d 160 (Mar. 2, 2026). McCane’s holding thus remains binding on
this Court. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss must be denied pursuant to McCane and
Vincent v. Bondi.
6:26-cr-00054-JFH Document 35 Filed in ED/OK on 06/05/26 Page 2 of 3

3
CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 33] is
DENIED.
Dated this 5th day of June 2026.
JOHN F. HEIL, III
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6:26-cr-00054-JFH Document 35 Filed in ED/OK on 06/05/26 Page 3 of 3