18 USC 922(g):
Federal Prohibited Persons

Under 18 U.S.C. 922(g), the following persons are prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition:

• (g)(1): Persons convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (felons)
• (g)(2): Fugitives from justice
• (g)(3): Persons who are unlawful users of or addicted to any controlled substance, as defined in Section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act
• (g)(4): Persons adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution
• (g)(5): Persons who are illegal or unlawful aliens, or who have been admitted under a nonimmigrant visa (with limited exceptions)
• (g)(6): Persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces
• (g)(7): Persons who have renounced United States citizenship
• (g)(8): Persons subject to certain domestic violence restraining orders
• (g)(9): Persons convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence

United States v. Rahimi: Supreme Court Upholds 922(g)(8) (June 2024)

On June 21, 2024, the Supreme Court issued an 8-1 decision in United States v. Rahimi ^[4], upholding the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8), the prohibition on firearm possession by persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion.

The case arose after the Fifth Circuit had struck down 922(g)(8), holding that the government failed to identify a historical analogue precisely matching the modern restraining order framework. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that when a restraining order contains a finding that an individual poses a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner, that individual may, consistent with the Second Amendment, be prohibited from possessing firearms while the order is in effect.

Critically, Rahimi clarified the Bruen framework. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that courts should not treat Bruen as requiring a "historical twin" for every modern firearms regulation. Instead, courts must look for historical regulations that are "relevantly similar" to the challenged law, examining whether the modern law addresses a comparable problem and uses a comparable means. This more flexible reading of Bruen has significant implications for the many pending Second Amendment challenges in California and across the country.

For California firearms owners, Rahimi reinforces that the 922(g)(8) prohibition remains constitutionally valid. Persons subject to a qualifying domestic violence restraining order are prohibited from possessing firearms under both federal law and California's parallel state provisions.

California Cross-Reference and Expansion

California's prohibited persons framework at Penal Code Sections 29800-29875 ^[2] includes state prohibitions for felony convictions, narcotic drug addiction, and specified misdemeanor convictions. California prohibitions that go beyond federal law include:

• Persons convicted of specified misdemeanors (including assault, battery, stalking, and threatening offenses) are prohibited for 10 years under Penal Code Section 29805
• Persons subject to Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GVROs) under Penal Code Sections 18100-18205
• Persons found by a court to be a danger to themselves or others during mental health holds under Welfare and Institutions Code Section 8103
• Licensed dealers may not sell, supply, deliver, or give possession or control of a handgun to a person under 21 under Penal Code Section 27510
• Persons convicted of certain juvenile offenses

Federal Penalties

A knowing violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g) is generally punishable by up to 15 years in prison under Section 924(a)(8), increased from 10 years by the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act of 2022. Section 924(e)(1) requires at least 15 years for a person with three previous convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses committed on different occasions. In Range v. Attorney General ^[3] (December 23, 2024), the Third Circuit again held that 922(g)(1) could not constitutionally disarm Bryan Range based on his nonviolent food-stamp-fraud misdemeanor, which was punishable by up to five years in prison. The court issued this narrow ruling after the Supreme Court vacated its 2023 decision and remanded for reconsideration. The decision is binding within the Third Circuit.

APPS Program

California's Armed Prohibited Persons System (APPS) cross-references the DOJ's Automated Firearms System database against criminal and mental health databases to identify persons who have become prohibited after a lawful purchase. DOJ agents then seek to recover firearms from these newly prohibited persons. APPS is unique to California and has no federal equivalent.

See also: California's Prohibited Person Categories vs Federal Law