Federal Weapons Charges Defense Lawyers in Texas

Federal weapons charges are among the most aggressively prosecuted offenses in the Northern District of Texas. The ATF, FBI, and local task forces investigate and prosecute firearms offenses ranging from prohibited person possession to large-scale gun trafficking operations. These cases carry mandatory minimum sentences that can add years or decades to any existing charges, and they are often used as leverage to pressure defendants into cooperation agreements.

At Deandra Grant Law, Attorney James Lee Bright leads our federal weapons defense. Lee has more than 25 years of federal trial experience, including a nationally prominent three-month federal trial in the District of Columbia. He is admitted to practice in all four federal districts in Texas, the District of Columbia, the Fifth Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court, giving him the broadest possible federal practice footprint.

Federal Weapons Statutes

• 18 U.S.C. §922(g)— Felon in Possession. The most commonly charged federal firearms offense. Maximum 15 years. Under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), defendants with three prior qualifying convictions face a mandatory minimum of 15 years.
• 18 U.S.C. §922(a)(1)(A) — Unlicensed Dealing in Firearms. Dealing without a federal firearms license. Used in gun trafficking prosecutions.
• 18 U.S.C. §924(c)— Firearm During Crime of Violence or Drug Trafficking. Mandatory minimum 5 years consecutive. Brandished: 7 years. Discharged: 10 years. Second conviction: 25 years.
• 18 U.S.C. §924(h) &§932 — Straw Purchasing and Firearms Trafficking. Enacted under the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act of 2022. Maximum 15 to 25 years.
• 26 U.S.C. §5861— NFA Violations. Unregistered short-barreled rifles, silencers, machine guns, destructive devices. Maximum 10 years.

Common Federal Weapons Cases in Texas

• Felon in possession — arising from traffic stops, probation searches, or domestic violence calls
• Firearms trafficking and straw purchases — ATF operations targeting individuals and networks transferring firearms to prohibited persons or for export
• Firearms in connection with drug trafficking — §924(c) charges adding mandatory consecutive time
• Unlicensed dealing — regular buying and selling without an FFL
• NFA violations — possession of silencers, short-barreled rifles, or other NFA items without registration

How We Challenge the Government’s Evidence

Constructive Possession

Many federal weapons cases allege “constructive possession” rather than actual possession. Lee challenges these arguments by examining whether the firearm was in a shared space accessible to multiple people, whether the government can prove actual knowledge, whether forensic evidence (fingerprints, DNA) connects the defendant to the weapon, and whether the theory of possession is supported by physical evidence or relies solely on inference.

ATF Trace Evidence and Forensic Ballistics

The defense needs to evaluate the reliability of ballistic matching evidence, chain of custody for seized firearms, ATF trace documentation, and whether forensic ballistics conclusions are supported by the physical evidence. The 2016 PCAST report found that firearms and tool mark identification has not been shown to meet scientific standards for foundational validity, and the false positive rate documented in empirical studies is not negligible. That analysis applies directly to cases where ballistic matching is offered against a defendant.

Second Amendment Challenges Under Bruen: The Current Fifth Circuit Landscape

The constitutional framework governing §922(g) charges has changed fundamentally since the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. What was once a settled area of law is now one of the most active areas of constitutional litigation in the federal courts, with the Fifth Circuit at the forefront.

In United States v. Diaz (5th Cir. 2024), the Fifth Circuit held that Bruen abrogated its prior precedent upholding §922(g)(1) categorically against Second Amendment challenge. Under Diaz, simply classifying a crime as a felony does not automatically satisfy the government’s burden. Instead, the government must demonstrate that applying §922(g)(1) to the specific defendant is consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Diaz in 2025, making it binding precedent throughout the Fifth Circuit.

The Fifth Circuit has since developed a framework distinguishing among types of predicate felonies:

• Violent felonies. The Fifth Circuit has upheld §922(g)(1) as applied to defendants whose predicate convictions involved violence. Historical tradition supports disarming individuals whose conduct evidences a specific danger of misusing firearms.
• Drug trafficking felonies. In United States v. Kimble (5th Cir. 2025), the Fifth Circuit held that disarming defendants convicted of drug trafficking is consistent with historical tradition. As-applied challenges based on drug trafficking predicates are foreclosed under Kimble in the Fifth Circuit.
• Non-violent felonies. This is where the strongest challenges remain viable. In United States v. Mitchell (5th Cir. 2025), the Fifth Circuit held that historical tradition does not empower the government to categorically disarm individuals convicted of non-violent crimes. In United States v. Cockerham (5th Cir. Dec. 2025), the court reversed a lifetime disarmament applying this framework. Non-violent predicate convictions (fraud, false statements, drug possession, regulatory offenses) present the strongest grounds for as-applied constitutional challenges in the Northern District of Texas.

§922(g)(3) (which prohibits possession by unlawful users of controlled substances) has been separately challenged. The Fifth Circuit held in Daniels v. United States and related cases that §922(g)(3) can be unconstitutional as applied. The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Hemani v. United States to address these §922(g)(3) challenges, and that decision is expected to significantly affect §922(g)(3) prosecutions.

Every §922(g) case in the Northern District of Texas should be evaluated for available Bruen-based constitutional challenges. The viability of a challenge depends on the nature of the predicate conviction and the specific facts of the defendant’s history. Lee evaluates each case individually for facial and as-applied challenges under the current Fifth Circuit framework.

Search and Seizure Challenges

Many weapons cases begin with a search. Lee evaluates the legality of every search and seizure and files suppression motions when the evidence supports them. Fourth Amendment challenges to the stop, the search, and the seizure of the firearm are often the most productive early defense in §922(g) cases arising from traffic stops or probation searches.

ACCA and Prior Conviction Status

The Armed Career Criminal Act can increase a felon-in-possession sentence from a maximum of 15 years to a mandatory minimum of 15 years when the defendant has three prior qualifying convictions for “violent felonies” or “serious drug offenses.” Determining whether prior convictions qualify as ACCA predicates is one of the most technically complex areas of federal sentencing law. The Supreme Court’s decision in

Wooden v. United States (2022) and subsequent circuit decisions have continued to refine which prior convictions count, how the “categorical approach” applies, and when prior convictions can be challenged. Lee reviews every predicate conviction for ACCA qualification, including whether restoration of civil rights has occurred and whether any conviction is legally insufficient to serve as an ACCA predicate.

Federal Sentencing in Weapons Cases

Federal weapons sentencing is driven by the United States Sentencing Guidelines Chapter 2K. Base offense levels depend on the type of firearm, the defendant’s prior record, and the circumstances of the offense. Enhancements apply for stolen firearms, firearms with obliterated serial numbers, trafficking, and connection to another felony. The §924(c) mandatory consecutive sentence runs on top of whatever sentence is imposed for the underlying offense. It cannot be run concurrently.

Effective federal weapons defense requires both attacking the charges and, where a conviction is likely, building the strongest possible mitigation for sentencing. Lee’s experience across all four Texas federal districts means familiarity with the sentencing practices of specific judges and the approaches of specific U.S. Attorney’s offices that are essential to effective representation at the sentencing phase.

Lead Attorney: James Lee Bright

James Lee Bright is one of the most experienced federal criminal defense attorneys in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, with more than 25 years of practice focused on federal criminal cases.

• Juris Doctor, University of Tennessee College of Law (1996)
• LL.M. in International Law, SMU Dedman School of Law (2003) — Phi Delta Phi honor fraternity
• Admitted to all four U.S. District Courts in Texas (Northern, Eastern, Southern, and Western Districts)
• Admitted to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
• Admitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Admitted to the United States Supreme Court
• Lead defense counsel in the Stewart Rhodes/Oath Keepers seditious conspiracy trial which was a three-month federal trial in Washington, D.C., among the most significant federal conspiracy prosecutions in recent history
• President, Dallas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association (2010–2011)
• Super Lawyers® (2021–2024)
• D Magazine Best Lawyers — multiple appearances

Facing Federal Weapons Charges? Contact Us Immediately.

Contact Deandra Grant Law for a free, confidential case review. If we can take your case, you will meet with Attorney James Lee Bright. We serve clients in the Northern, Eastern, Southern, and Western Districts of Texas, the District of Columbia, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Call (214) 225-7117 or schedule an appointment online.