The Wisconsin Out of State Felony Conundrum Part II: The 2nd Amendment Argument Plot Thickens after U.S. v. Watson
For those of you who have not read part I, that article provides a better big picture view of the issue. This blog addresses what impact the federal 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decision on April 2, 2026, has on people wanting their gun rights back in the state of Wisconsin. United States v. Watson, No. 24-2432 (7th Cir. Apr. 2, 2026).
The federal circuit split on non-violent felony 2nd amendment challenges
There is a split in the federal courts on the issue of whether non-violent felony convictions can justify disarmament under the 2nd amendment. The Supreme Court of the United States has yet to rule on this issue. What federal courts around the nation have said can be of some persuasive value. But the most important federal law for residents of Wisconsin is what happens in the 7th circuit because Wisconsin is in the 7th circuit along with the states of Illinois and Indiana. The 7th Circuit has been relatively quiet until recently. And United States v. Watson closes some door to non-violent felony arguments, but also appears to intentionally keep open other doors.
Drug distribution convictions are closed off as 2nd amendment argument in the 7th Circuit
The criminal defendant in U.S. v. Watson had a prior conviction for the possession of controlled substances with the intent to distribute. No. 24-2432 (7th Cir. Apr. 2, 2026). Prior to this case, other federal courts have held that drug traffickers can be disarmed under the 2nd amendment. United States v. Kimble, 142 F.4th 308, 311 (5th Cir. 2025). There are arguments that the rationale that everyone who sells drug is dangerous is flawed. (see generally, Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness (2012)). But getting into the details of that goes beyond the scope of this article. The 7th Circuit draws a distinction between users and distributers of drugs, and upholds disarmament for distributers under the 2nd amendment.
The 7th Circuit leaves open arguments for other non-violent felonies
Even though the Watson opinion closes the door on one type of offense, there are several pieces of the opinion that appear to be promising for future people who are wanting to make a 2nd amendment challenge. First, this opinion does not negatively impact those conviction of simple possession of drugs as compared to distribution, sales, or trafficking. Second, the opinion deliberately leaves open the issue for other non-violent felony convictions. Other federal circuits have closed the door completely on this argument. But the Watson opinion does more than just non-mention other offenses, it explicitly says multiple times that this opinion does not say whether those with a non-violent felony conviction can be disarmed. The opinion begins with Justice Story’s quote that the 2nd amendment is “the palladium of the liberties of a republic.” And even thought the opinion rules against the 2nd amendment argument for this criminal defendant, it includes many 2nd amendment favorable citations and arguments within its reasoning. This is encouraging for anyone with an old non-violent felony conviction in Wisconsin as long as your offense was not the same as the criminal defendant in U.S. v. Watson.
Conclusion
If you are wanting your gun rights back and are being held back by an old felony, you want to talk to an attorney who is knowledgeable about restoring your gun rights. Peter Lindstrom, Esq. is an attorney in both Wisconsin and Minnesota who can help you out. Contact Subzero Expungements, Pardons & Appeals for a free consultation. 651-248-5142