Third Circuit: a nonviolent DUI conviction alone isn’t enough to disarm under federal law

Federal law bars gun possession by anyone convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year in prison — including people whose convictions had nothing to do with violence. On October 13, 2026, the full Third Circuit held that ban cannot be applied to a man whose only disqualifying conviction was a nonviolent drunk-driving case, while upholding it against a man convicted of making terroristic threats. California courts follow the Ninth Circuit instead, where the ban still applies.

Sources checked October 16, 2026. Educational information only, not legal advice.

What changed	The Third Circuit, sitting en banc, ruled that the federal felon-in-possession ban cannot be applied to a nonviolent drunk-driving conviction, but still applies to convictions that show a risk of violence.
Effective	Opinions filed October 13, 2026. Binding on federal courts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware only — not on California.
Applies to	Anyone facing 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), including California residents, though California federal courts follow Ninth Circuit precedent that keeps the ban in place.
Statutory basis	18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); Williams v. Attorney General, No. 24-1091 (3d Cir. en banc, Oct. 13, 2026); United States v. Bost, No. 24-1719 (3d Cir. en banc, Oct. 13, 2026).

What happened

Two en banc opinions landed the same day in the Third Circuit, which covers federal courts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware, and they set one rule: the federal felon ban is judged conviction by conviction, and only a conviction showing a risk of physical violence supports permanently disarming someone.

In Williams v. Attorney General (No. 24-1091), a majority led by Judge Paul Matey affirmed a judgment that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to Edward Williams. His only qualifying conviction was a 2005 Pennsylvania DUI at the “highest rate of alcohol,” punishable by up to five years in prison because of an earlier offense, though he served home confinement. The court wrote that “[t]he practice of permanently disarming felons only dates back to the 1960s,” that felons are part of “the people” the Second Amendment protects, and that the government identified no historical tradition of disarming people who pose no risk of violence.

In United States v. Bost (No. 24-1719), a majority led by Judge Stephanos Bibas affirmed a felon-in-possession conviction because “some predicate crimes (like Bost’s conviction for terroristic threats) demonstrate a prima facie risk of physical violence from misusing guns and that those convicted of such crimes may presumptively be disarmed based on those convictions alone.” Bost had pleaded guilty to terroristic threats after a 2002 carjacking in which he threatened to kill the driver.

The split is not settled. As the court noted, the Second, Fourth, Eighth and Tenth Circuits have rejected limiting the ban to dangerous predicates. The Supreme Court has not decided the question, and on October 13, 2026 it denied review of a similar Ninth Circuit case (covered here).

What it means for you

For California, nothing changes today. The Ninth Circuit keeps the federal felon ban in place for California cases, so a conviction punishable by more than a year in prison still triggers § 922(g)(1) here, and the Supreme Court’s denial of review left that unchanged. California’s own prohibitions — including 10-year bans tied to specified convictions and DOJ eligibility checks on purchases — are separate state law and are untouched by both opinions.

The federal restoration route is the Attorney General’s process under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c). The Bost opinion noted that the process has not yet resumed even though final regulations were promulgated. Whether your own record disqualifies you depends on the specific conviction, and the answer can differ between states; get advice about your own case rather than relying on a general summary.

The official source