Felon in Possession of a Firearm Defense (§ 941.29 / 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) | Cafferty & Scheidegger

Two Statutes, One Firearm, Very Different Consequences

A single firearm in a convicted felon’s car creates potential liability under two separate statutes:

• Wisconsin, possession of a firearm by a felon under Wis. Stat. § 941.29, a Class G felony.
• Federal, the same conduct under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), with 15-year maximum under § 924(a)(2) and potential Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) elevation to a 15-year mandatory minimum under § 924(e) with qualifying priors.

Which one gets filed depends on prior history, the firearm, how the case came to law enforcement’s attention, and whether federal investigators were already involved.

What the State Must Prove in a § 941.29 Case

• The defendant was previously convicted of a felony. Wisconsin law also covers certain juvenile adjudications and specific out-of-state convictions classified as felonies.
• The defendant possessed a firearm, actual (on person) or constructive (in an area subject to the defendant’s dominion and control).
• The possession occurred on or after the date the defendant’s felony conviction became effective and before any restoration of firearm rights.

What the Federal Government Must Prove in a § 922(g)(1) Case

• The defendant was previously convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year in prison. The underlying offense itself, not the sentence actually served, controls.
• The defendant knowingly possessed a firearm or ammunition.
• The firearm or ammunition traveled in or affected interstate commerce. This element is satisfied in practice for any firearm not manufactured entirely in the state of possession. Rehaif v. United States, 588 U.S. 225 (2019), added a mens-rea requirement: the defendant must have known of their status as a prohibited person.

The Rehaif Defense

Since Rehaif, the government in a § 922(g)(1) case must prove the defendant knew, at the time of possession, that they had been convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year. Defendants who sincerely believed their rights had been restored, who were misled by state-level paperwork, or who had only misdemeanor convictions may have a knowledge-of-status defense. This is actively litigated in the Seventh Circuit.

Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) Elevation

If the federal government can prove three predicate convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses committed on separate occasions, § 924(e) imposes a 15-year mandatory minimum for § 922(g)(1). ACCA litigation is dense and the Supreme Court has revised the definitional landscape several times, Johnson, Mathis, Wooden, Borden, Brown. Careful analysis of each predicate is essential; one that is not a categorical match to the ACCA definition removes the mandatory minimum.

Defense Angles (State and Federal)

• Possession as a legal conclusion. The firearm must be under the defendant’s dominion and control. A firearm in a shared residence, owned by another occupant, and not in the defendant’s immediate vicinity may not support a possession conviction.
• Stop and search suppression. Most § 941.29 / § 922(g)(1) cases arise from a traffic stop, an execution of a warrant on another matter, or a probation search. Each has its own constitutional analysis.
• Predicate-offense attack. If the underlying felony conviction is constitutionally infirm, subject to a valid expungement, or has been set aside, the predicate fails and so does the case. Rare, but happens.
• Restoration of rights. Wisconsin does not automatically restore firearm rights; Governor’s pardon under state law is one pathway. Restoration under another state’s law, if the predicate was from that state, may control.
• Antique firearm exception. 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(16) exempts certain pre-1899 firearms from the federal statute. The Wisconsin statute does not have an identical exemption, which creates a split where the same firearm is lawful federally but not under state law.
• Rehaif knowledge challenge, federal only.
• ACCA predicate challenge, federal only, case-dispositive on the mandatory minimum.

Charge Patterns We See in 4-County Southeast Wisconsin

• Traffic-stop discovery, the most common fact pattern. Firearm found during an inventory search, consent search, or plain-view observation. Fourth Amendment issues dominate.
• Probation-search cases, the defendant is on probation for the underlying felony, consents to searches as a condition, and a home search turns up the firearm. Probation-search consent has specific limits.
• Domestic-situation calls, a § 922(g) case that began as a welfare check or domestic dispute, often raising § 922(g)(9) DV-misdemeanor questions in addition to § 922(g)(1).
• Gang or organized-crime task-force investigations, federal from the outset, usually charged alongside drug or RICO counts.

Federal-State Concurrency and Charging Choice

U.S. Attorneys’ Offices work with local prosecutors to decide whether a § 941.29 goes state or federal. Federal prosecution carries higher maximums and mandatory minimums; state prosecution often has more charging flexibility. The decision can turn on priors, the firearm class (e.g., machine guns or silencers push federal), and whether a Project Safe Neighborhoods task force is involved.

The defense strategy works both angles. See our federal defense overview.

Collateral Consequences Beyond the Sentence

• Lifetime firearm prohibition, even after sentence completion, any future firearm contact is a new offense.
• Immigration consequences, firearm convictions are often deportable offenses.
• Professional license consequences, law, medicine, real estate, security, and many public-trust positions.
• Housing, federally subsidized housing bars drug-felony and firearm-felony convictions.
• Voting rights, restored after sentence completion in Wisconsin (including extended supervision), but timing matters.

Related Weapons Pages

• CCW (Carrying Concealed Weapon) charges.
• Main gun and weapons charges hub.
• Federal defense practice.

Talk to a Lawyer Before You Talk to Anyone Else

Felon-in-possession cases are often won or lost on the suppression motion. Preserving that argument starts with not making statements during the initial stop, the post-arrest interview, or any federal task-force follow-up. Call or text Cafferty & Scheidegger at (262) 632-5000. Free, confidential, 24-hour consultation.