United States v. Julius Postell

── United States v. Julius Postell ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Date: May 18, 2026 Category: General NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ No. 24-1909 ____________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JULIUS POSTELL, Appellant ____________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Crim. No. 2:20-cr-00360-001) District Judge: Honorable Nitza I. Quiñones Alejandro ____________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) September 8, 2025 ____________ Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, PORTER and ROTH, Circuit Judges. (Filed May 18, 2026) ____________ OPINION* ____________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, pursuant to 3d Cir. I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. CHAGARES, Chief Judge. Julius Postell pled guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). On appeal, he argues that his conviction is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. For the reasons below, we will affirm. I. We write primarily for the parties and so recite only those facts pertinent to our decision. Philadelphia police officers suspected that Postell was engaging in a drug deal, as they observed him outside a gated backyard with a plastic bag in his hand. Postell at first turned toward the officers, but he then walked in another direction and discarded a firearm onto the sidewalk. The officers stopped Postell, recovered the firearm, and verified that Postell had prior felony convictions. After he was arrested, Postell was indicted for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Postell first moved to dismiss his indictment, arguing that § 922(g)(1) violated the Second Amendment as applied to him. The District Court denied Postell’s motion. Postell then entered into a plea agreement with the Government, which limited any appeal to the denial of his motion to dismiss. The District Court sentenced Postell to sixty-six months of imprisonment. Postell timely appealed. 2  II.1 Postell argues that the Second Amendment prohibits his prosecution under § 922(g)(1), which forbids any individual convicted of an offense punishable by more than a year of imprisonment from possessing firearms. Postell and the Government agree that he is one of “the people” to whom the Second Amendment applies. U.S. Const. amend. II; see Range v. Attorney General (“Range II”), 124 F.4th 218 (3d Cir. 2025) (en banc). An analysis of a Second Amendment challenge proceeds in two steps: (1) whether “the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct,”2 and (2) whether the law “is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 24 (2022). Postell relies on this Court’s decision in Range v. Attorney General (“Range I”), 69 F.4th 96 (3d Cir. 2023) (en banc),3 to suggest that our Nation’s history and tradition do not support permanently disarming felons who have completed their sentences. But we held that 1 The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have