Table of Contents
A gun offense is hardly a stand-alone offense. It may involve federal, state, or both federal and state laws. The risk of penalty is stricter for the accused and their background than for the facts of the case.
During 2025, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) had over 655,000 requests for firearms traces and over 623,000 acquisitions from its ballistic database, with an outcome of 193,269 leads from investigations. Even with the overall drop in violent crimes, firearm-related violations continued to be a major concern of law enforcement.
Since states have varying firearm laws, many of the same offenses that can lead to state charges for gun crimes are also federal offenses. For example, according to Indianapolis gun crime lawyer, gun charges mostly fall under the scope of state laws on the illegal possession, utilization, and transportation of guns, among other firearms. In Indiana, firearm charges that can lead to court cases vary, with some being minor offenses and others being serious felonies, each carrying a distinct set of penalties.
Let’s discuss how both federal and state laws affect firearm charges.
One Incident, Two Sovereigns
The government can prosecute an individual twice for the same conduct. Double jeopardy cannot apply where there is a state proceeding and a federal proceeding arising out of the same conduct since the state and federal governments are different sovereigns.
An individual may not necessarily be a prohibited person under the federal government but still face charges at the state level for a certain offense.
The involvement of both federal and state proceedings in a firearm charge case requires legal proficiency in both courts simultaneously, not just one. The procedures, sentencing formulas, and plea dynamics are quite different such that each becomes its own specialty.
Choosing the right defense counsel is important to protect your rights. As the legal website https://www.wellbornlawfirm.com/ stated, when you are charged with a crime, you don’t want a lawyer whose practice is so widespread that he or she only knows a little about many different areas.
You need an attorney who focuses entirely on criminal defense. A focused representation is important for a defendant whose freedom and future are on the line.
What “Possession” Actually Means
The federal statute concerning firearm possession does not require the gun to be in anyone’s hand. Constructive possession is enough. This term refers to knowing where a firearm is and having the ability to control it. Courts have found it in a range of situations.
- A firearm at a partner’s or relative’s home where the defendant regularly stayed
- A firearm in the trunk of a car the defendant was driving
- A firearm in a storage unit the defendant had a key to
- A firearm in a shared bedroom the defendant had access to
Rehaif v. United States, 588 U.S. 225 (2019), narrowed this scope somewhat. The government must now prove the defendant knew he or she belonged to a prohibited category, not merely that he or she possessed the gun.
If an individual was not made aware that a previous conviction disqualifies them from possessing certain firearms, they may use such knowledge as a mitigating factor. This situation is common after out-of-state convictions or when a guilty plea was entered under the understanding that the consequences were not so severe.
ACCA: The Record Outweighs the Offense
The Armed Career Criminal Act takes the 10-year maximum sentence and turns it into a 15-year mandatory minimum if the defendant is found to have committed three or more qualifying prior felonies or drug crimes. Below this baseline, there is zero discretion for the judge, whatever the facts of the instant crime.
It is an unusual provision, yet also a harsh one. Just 2% of defendants convicted under Section 922(g) received ACCA sentences in fiscal year 2024, and their average sentence length was approximately 16 years compared to 70 months for everybody else. Prior convictions never expire when it comes to ACCA.
A burglary from decades ago will work just like any other offense. What is new is what constitutes a qualifying conviction, as Borden v. United States, 593 U.S. 420 (2021), held that ACCA violent felonies require a mental state higher than recklessness. The lower courts have taken several assault and reckless endangerment convictions off the list since then.
Whether the prior at issue qualifies is often a substantive issue in modern ACCA litigation.
The Constitutional Ground Is Still Moving
In the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), the court abandoned the “means-end” test and adopted the historical test for the interpretation of the Second Amendment.
When the language of the Second Amendment applies to specific conduct, that conduct is presumptively protected.
That framework has continued to develop ever since. The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024), upheld the provisions of Section 922(g)(8) as providing for the protection of the Constitution and objection to the possession of firearms by people with domestic-violence-related restraining orders.
Rahimi’s focus on dangerousness has provided defendants with the opportunity to argue against the extension of Section 922(g)(1) to nonviolent crimes committed long ago.
The Supreme Court had previously vacated an earlier en banc ruling in the same case and remanded it for reconsideration in light of Rahimi. The Third Circuit reached the same result in the 124 F.4th 218 decision, and the government did not seek further review.
Such cases have nevertheless proven unsuccessful overwhelmingly more often than not.
The strategic value of these cases lies beyond the decision itself. A sufficiently strong constitutional claim influences what the government offers to avoid creating an unfavorable precedent.
The Label Tells You Almost Nothing
Two individuals can face the same federal firearm law charges but experience different aspects of law and order. For instance, one of the individuals has been in possession of the gun in a criminal context, while the other individual’s challenge is that this gun was found in a constricted area with their knowledge. A stipulation of a mandatory minimum sentence applies to one charge for one person and not to another.
In some cases, such as the Borden v. United States case, the existing punishment attached to a prior conviction does not guarantee that enhanced sentencing will apply.
You cannot see these distinctions just from the offense. In many directions related to security and defense, this attitude can alter according to the perceived threat level. Unlike in so many other criminal cases, one’s previous criminal record often forms the basis for the availability of defenses and the extent of punishment.
In firearm cases, the analysis begins with the defendant’s history rather than the incident, which is the reverse of how most criminal cases work. This method of analysis is the single most common misconception people have when dealing with firearm charges.
