The questions presented for review are: (1) Is whether Application Note 14(b) unreasonably interprets the text of § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), such that no deference to the commentary is justified. (2) Based on the Supreme Court's course of correction in how the constitutionality of firearms regulations is reviewed under the Second Amendment, 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to Mr. James. There is no relevantly similar analogue in the historical tradition for the 922(g)(l)'s permanent disbarment of all felons. As a result, Mr. James 922(g)(1) conviction violates the 2nd Amendment, and this Court should exercise its discretion and find that Mr. James, suffered plain error under "Rahimi Case", when the district court found facts necessary to establish the 922(g)(1) conviction.

Is Application Note 14(b) an unreasonable interpretation of § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), and is 922(g)(1) unconstitutional as applied to Mr. James under the Second Amendment?