govinfo:USCOURTS-mnd-0_19-cr-00018-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
  DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 
 
 
United States of America, 
 
  Plaintiff,   ORDER DENYING  
 v.       MOTION FOR RESTORATION  
         OF RIGHTS 
James Allan Siegrist,      Criminal No. 19-18 ADM 
              
  Defendant.      
  
_____________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 This matter is before the undersigned United States District Judge for a ruling on 
Defendant James Allan Siegrist’s pro se Motion to for Restoration of Rights [Docket No. 9].   
Siegrist specifically requests restoration of his Second Amendment right to bear arms.  Mot. at 3.  
The motion is denied for lack of jurisdiction and because it fails on the merits.   
 In 2013, Siegrist was found guilty by a jury in the District of North Dakota of two counts 
of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) 
and 924(a)(2).  He was sentenced to 84 months’ imprisonment to be followed by 3 years of 
supervised release.  The case was transferred to the District of Minnesota in 2019 during his 
period of supervision, which is now complete.   
 On April 10, 2026, Siegrist filed this motion asking the court to restore his right to bear 
arms, contending that his conviction violated the Second Amendment as applied to him.  Mot. at 
2.  He unsuccessfully made similar arguments in his direct and collateral appeals.  See United 
States v. Siegrist, 595 F. App’x 666, 667 (8th Cir. 2015) (per curiam); United States v. Siegrist, 
CR. No. 1:13-62 (DLH) (D.N.D.) [Docket No. 264].   
CASE 0:19-cr-00018-ADM     Doc. 14     Filed 05/20/26     Page 1 of 2
2 
 
 The court lacks jurisdiction to consider this Motion.  As the United States Supreme Court 
has held, a party seeking to restore Second Amendment rights must first petition the Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (“ATF”) for such relief.  United States v. Bean, 537 U.S. 71, 77-
78 (2002).  “[A] district court cannot grant relief on its own, absent an antecedent actual denial 
by ATF.”  Id. at 78.  There is no indication that Siegrist has followed this requirement.     
 Even if properly before the Court, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals precedent forecloses 
his claim.  See  United States v. Jackson, 110 F.4th 1120, (8th Cir. 2024, cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 
2520 (2025) (holding that § 922(g) is facially constitutional and constitutional as applied to any 
defendant convicted of a qualifying felony).     
 Based upon the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS 
HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant James Allan Siegrist’s Motion for Restoration of Rights 
[Docket No. 9] is DENIED.   
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
Dated:  May 20, 2026 
       s/Ann D. Montgomery    
       ANN D. MONTGOMERY 
       U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
CASE 0:19-cr-00018-ADM     Doc. 14     Filed 05/20/26     Page 2 of 2

Passage view · GavelSight