MEMORANDUM **

Cain Barajas-Arredondo appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging his conviction for use of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), (d). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Barajas-Arredondo contends that the district court erred by denying his § 2241 petition on the grounds that he previously filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion raising the same claim, because § 2255 is an inadequate or ineffective remedy to test the legality of his detention. We review the district court’s denial of a § 2241 petition de novo. Bowen v. Hood, 202 F.3d 1211, 1218 (9th Cir. 2000).

Barajas-Arredondo’s contention that § 2255 is an inadequate remedy because it bars him from raising a successive motion fails. See Lorentsen v. Hood, 223 F.3d 950, 953 (9th Cir. 2000) (stating that the ban on unauthorized second or successive motions does not per se make § 2255 inadequate or ineffective).

Because a habeas petitioner cannot circumvent the bar against successive § 2255 motions by bringing a § 2241 petition styled as a § 2255 motion attacking the legality of his firearm conviction, the district court properly denied Barajas-Arredondo’s § 2241 petition. See Porter v. Adams, 244 F.3d 1006, 1007 (9th Cir. 2001) (affirming the denial of a § 2241 petition *558raising the same claims attacking petitioner’s conviction that he unsuccessfully raised in a prior § 2255 motion); Moore v. Reno, 185 F.3d 1054, 1055 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (stating that § 2241 relief may not be sought unless § 2255 has been shown to be inadequate or ineffective), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1178, 120 S.Ct. 1214, 145 L.Ed.2d 1115 (2000).

AFFIRMED.