United States v. Edlando Watson

── United States v. Edlando Watson ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Date: April 29, 2026 Category: General In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-2432 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDLANDO M. WATSON, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. No. 1:23-cr-00109-WCG-1 — William C. Griesbach, Judge. ____________________ ARGUED SEPTEMBER 25, 2025 — DECIDED APRIL 2, 2026 ____________________ Before BRENNAN, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and SYKES, Circuit Judges. BRENNAN, Chief Judge. The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. This right, Justice Story proclaimed, is “the palladium of the liberties of a republic.” 2 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 620 (4th ed. Boston, Little, Brown & Co. 1873). But the right is not unlimited. 2 No. 24-2432 We are asked to decide whether the federal felon in pos- session of a firearm law, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), is constitutional as applied to Edlando Watson, who has a prior felony convic- tion for possessing an illegal drug with intent to distribute it. As applied to Watson, this law is constitutional because his previous felony drug-dealing conviction is inherently danger- ous. His disarmament is consistent with the history and tra- dition of Founding-era laws. But we do not decide whether an individual with a non-dangerous felony can be disarmed. I. Background Early one morning in May 2022, Laquiesha Washington and her children rode by Uber to a home in Madison, Wiscon- sin. When they arrived, Washington got out and told the driver she needed to retrieve something from the residence but would be right back. After several minutes, Washington ran out of the door, yelling “pull out, pull out, he’s coming with a gun!” As she jumped into the Uber, three shots rang out. The driver sped away and later flagged down police. The next day police interviewed Washington. She said “Meek” had fired the shots. Madison Detective Joseph Buccel- lato recognized the nickname from Meek J’s Masonry, owned by Edlando Watson. Washington gave police Meek’s phone number, which matched the number on file for Watson. Buccellato knew Watson lived at a nearby hotel. He se- cured a search warrant for the hotel room (“hotel warrant”). The hotel warrant authorized police to take a DNA cheek swab from Watson “and any other occupants of [the hotel room] at the time of warrant service.” Police searched the ho- tel room and found photos of Watson. No. 24-2432 3 About a month later, police arrested Watson. Buccellato then secured a search warrant for Watson’s masonry business (“business warrant”). That warrant authorized police to take a DNA sample from Watson and “any other occupants of [the business] at the time of warrant service.” A sample was taken from Watson at the police station. The gun used in the shooting had yet to be located. Police spoke with Watson’s ex-girlfriend, Lashundia Pearnell, who revealed that Watson had stashed guns in her storage unit but recently removed them. Then, an anonymous tipster told po- lice that Linda Yarrington, the mother of Watson’s child, was safekeeping Watson’s gun in her storage locker. Police searched her unit and found several handguns and rifles. Male DNA collected off some of the guns matched the sample taken from Watson. Later, in recorded jail telephone calls to Yarrington’s number, a female voice was heard telling Watson that police seized the guns, and Watson asked how police knew which unit to search. Federal authorities then b