Appellate Case: 24-8044 Document: 36 Date Filed: 07/15/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT July 15, 2025 _____________________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 24-8044 (D.C. No. 2:24-CR-00021-ABJ-2) BRITTANY LYN ISAACSON, (D. Wyo.) Defendant - Appellant.

___________________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * ___________________________________________ Before BACHARACH, MORITZ, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. ___________________________________________ This appeal involves the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which criminalizes a convicted felon’s possession of a firearm. The defendant, Ms. Brittany Isaacson, was convicted under this law and appeals, arguing that the law violates the Second Amendment.

* Oral argument would not help us decide the appeal, so we have decided the appeal based on the record and the parties’ briefs. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).

This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value if otherwise appropriate. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).

Appellate Case: 24-8044 Document: 36 Date Filed: 07/15/2025 Page: 2

We upheld the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) in United States v. McCane, 573 F.3d 1037, 1047 (10th Cir. 2009). But Ms. Isaacson argues that McCane is no longer good law based on two later Supreme Court opinions: • New York Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 24 (2022) and • United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024).

We have rejected the same arguments in two precedential opinions. In the first opinion, Vincent v. Garland, 80 F.4th 1197, 1200–02 (10th Cir. 2023), we held that McCane hadn’t been abrogated by Bruen. In the second opinion, Vincent v. Bondi, 127 F.4th 1263, 1265 (10th Cir. 2025), we held that McCane hadn’t been abrogated by Rahimi.

Our two opinions—Vincent v. Garland and Vincent v. Bondi—control, requiring us to reject Ms. Isaacson’s constitutional challenge to § 922(g)(1). See In re Smith, 10 F.3d 723, 724 (10th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (stating that one panel is bound by a prior published Tenth Circuit opinion unless abrogated by the en banc court or the Supreme Court). So we affirm the conviction.

Entered for the Court

Robert E. Bacharach Circuit Judge