Memorandum and Order — United States v. Michael Jones (E.D.N.Y., Dkt. 48, August 20, 2025)

Summary

In this Memorandum and Order in United States v. Michael Jones, Nina R. Morrison, United States District Judge, denies Jones's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment (ECF No. 26). The indictment of June 5, 2024, charged Jones with possessing a single round of ammunition after having been convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Jones argued that, in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, the statute is unconstitutional, both facially and as applied. The case was stayed pending Second Circuit decisions. The Court holds that Zherka v. Bondi, 140 F.4th 68 (2d Cir. 2025), resolves the question and that the statute is constitutional facially and as applied to Jones, although Jones is charged with possessing ammunition rather than a firearm.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Cite this document

“Memorandum and Order — United States v. Michael Jones (E.D.N.Y., Dkt. 48, August 20, 2025).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/court-filing-no-1-24-cr-00235-dkt-48-e-d-n-y-cda0608413/, SHA-256 ce15b795f5d9d697d9afe62b374f6540ddca41723a08fe9e9bf8a5318dc81ddf.

Full text

Case 1:24-cr-00235-NRM Document 48 Filed 08/20/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 212

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------------x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MEMORANDUM AND
ORDER

24-CR-235 (NRM)
-against-

MICHAEL JONES,

Defendant.

------------------------------------------------------------------x

NINA R. MORRISON, United States District Judge:

Pending before the Court is Defendant Michael Jones’s Motion to Dismiss the

Indictment. ECF No. 26. For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies Jones’s

motion.

On June 5, 2024, Defendant Michael Jones was indicted in this Court and

charged with possessing a single round of ammunition after having been convicted of

a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).1 Indictment at 1, ECF No. 15.2 On

September 7, 2024, Jones filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing that in

1 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) provides that “[i]t shall be unlawful for any person . . .

who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a
term exceeding one year . . . to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or
possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any
firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign
commerce.”

2 All page references are to the pagination generated by the Official Court
Electronic Document Filing System (CM/ECF).
1
Case 1:24-cr-00235-NRM Document 48 Filed 08/20/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 213

light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol

Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) — the statute under

which Jones was indicted — is unconstitutional, both facially and as applied to him.

Def. Mot. to Dismiss Indictment (“Def Mot.”) at 3, ECF No. 26.

In a status conference on November 14, 2024, the Court informed the parties

of its view that the decisions in either of two cases then pending before the Second

Circuit may control Defendant’s motion to dismiss, and the parties agreed to stay the

case for 120 days or until a decision on either of those two cases, whichever occurred

sooner. Minute Entry dated Nov. 14, 2024. By March 26, 2025, the Second Circuit

had not decided either case, and the Court extended the stay on Mr. Jones’s case

through May 26, 2025. Docket Order dated Mar. 26, 2025. On June 26, 2025, the

government filed a letter informing the Court that the Second Circuit decided one of

those cases, Zherka v. Bondi, 140 F.4th 68 (2d Cir. 2025). Gov’t Letter to Court, ECF

No. 45.

The parties jointly requested a status conference in light of the Second Circuit’s

decision in Zherka. Gov’t Letter to Court dated June 26, 2025, ECF No. 45. After the

mandate in Zherka issued on August 1, 2025, the Court held a status conference on

August 5, 2025, during which the parties stated they had no further briefing to submit

regarding Jones’s pending motion to dismiss the indictment in light of Zherka. See

Minute Entry dated Aug. 5, 2025.

In his motion, Jones argues that under Bruen, possession of ammunition falls

within the Second Amendment’s plain text and thus Jones’s conduct as set forth in

2
Case 1:24-cr-00235-NRM Document 48 Filed 08/20/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 214

the indictment is protected by the Second Amendment. Def. Mot. at 5. Jones argues

that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional both facially and as applied to him.

In Zherka, the Second Circuit rejected the defendant’s argument that 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(g)(1), in its prohibition of the possession of firearms by people convicted of a

felony, was unconstitutional as applied to him, someone who was convicted of a

nonviolent felony. 140 F.4th at 91–93. The Second Circuit conducted the rigorous

historical analysis demanded by Bruen and concluded that “Congress’s conclusion

that a felony conviction demonstrates a character or temperament inconsistent with

the safe and prudent possession of deadly weapons is an appropriate exercise of its

longstanding power to disarm dangerous categories of persons.” Id. at 91. The Court

further found that “[b]ecause legislatures at or near the Founding had the authority

to pass laws disarming large classes of people based on status alone, we conclude that

the Second Amendment does not bar Congress from passing laws that disarm

convicted felons, regardless of whether the crime of conviction is nonviolent.” Id. at

93.

It is clear that Zherka resolves the question at the center of Jones’s motion to

dismiss: whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional, either on its face or as

applied to him. Zherka held that the statute’s broad disarmament of people convicted

of felonies comported with history and tradition and was constitutional even in the

wake of Bruen. Though the defendant in Zherka challenged whether he could be

foreclosed from possessing a firearm, whereas Jones is indicted with possessing

ammunition, this Court finds that the same analysis and reasoning apply to his case,

3
Case 1:24-cr-00235-NRM Document 48 Filed 08/20/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 215

as both turn on the same asserted Second Amendment right to bear arms and

whether Congress acted within its authority to regulate the challenged conduct under

18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Applying Bruen and Zherka, the Court finds that 18 U.S.C. §

922(g)(1) constitutionally prohibits the possession of ammunition where a person is

convicted of a felony; the statute is constitutional facially and as applied to Jones.

Thus, the Court denies Jones’s motion to dismiss the indictment.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Nina R. Morrison

NINA R. MORRISON
United States District Judge

Dated: August 20, 2025
Brooklyn, New York

File and source

File: 48.pdf
Size: 117,911 bytes
SHA-256: ce15b795f5d9d697d9afe62b374f6540ddca41723a08fe9e9bf8a5318dc81ddf
Our copy: 48.pdf
Original: No public link identified.