Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 06-10-2024

Case Style:

United States of America v. Brandon Lee Mayfield

Case Number: 4:22-CR-242

Judge: Gregory K. Frizzell

Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (Tulsa County)

Plaintiff's Attorney: United States Attorney's office in Tulsa

Defendant's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best Tulsa, Oklahoma Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory


Tulsa, Oklahoma criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with possession of a firearm in violaiton of 922(g)(1).

A grand jury indicted Defendant Brandon Lee Mayfield on one count of
possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Defendant pleaded
guilty to this crime. Defendant’s record includes four prior felony convictions—
three for domestic assault and battery by strangulation; and one for domestic assault
and battery, second offense.

Congress long ago prohibited felons from possessing firearms. 18 U.S.C
§ 922(g)(1). Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment against him based on the
Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v.
Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), which created a new test for the scope of the right to
possess firearms. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the indictment under Bruen.
The district court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Defendant pleaded guilty
but preserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss. The district
court sentenced Defendant to 180 months’ imprisonment and five years’ supervised

Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal. Before Defendant’s sentencing, we
decided Vincent v. Garland, 80 F.4th 1197 (10th Cir. 2023), holding that Bruen does
not expressly overrule our precedent from United States v. McCane, 573 F.3d 1037
(10th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we upheld the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) in

Even so, Defendant argues on appeal that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second
Amendment because the Government has not, and cannot, establish a historical
tradition of disarming felons under Bruen. But Defendant acknowledges that Vincent
forecloses his Second Amendment challenges to § 922(g)(1), and he brings these
arguments for preservation only

Outcome: Affirmed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:


Find a Lawyer


Find a Case