Trial of Fairbury Man Facing Felony Gun Charge Postponed Again as Defendant Raises “Constitutional Issue”
The trial of a Fairbury man prohibited from owning firearms due to a felony conviction has been postponed for a second time at the request of the defendant.
Cameron D. May, age 54, is charged with possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, a class 1D felony punishable by three to 50 years in prison.
Nebraska law prohibits an individual with a felony conviction from possessing a firearm. Per Nebraska Revised Statute 28-1206, “The felony conviction may have been had in any court in the United States, the several states, territories, or possessions, or the District of Columbia.”
On November 15, 2023, at approximately 1:30 p.m., the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office received a tip from an individual who reported May is a convicted felon and was in possession of firearms.
According the Affidavit for Arrest Warrant, the reporting party sent photos in which four different firearms were identified: a Glock 48, a 45 caliber 1911, a 12-gauge pump shotgun, and an AR-15 style rifle.
The affidavit indicates deputies were also provided with photographs of “what appeared to be two military-style ammunition boxes next to a piece of mail.”
The defendant’s name and address were clearly visible on the mail.
The warrant was issued Thursday, November 30, 2023.
May was arrested on Wednesday, December 6, 2023, at the Jefferson County Courthouse. He was in court that day to fight a speeding ticket and was arrested after the trial.
A two-day trial had been scheduled to begin January 23, 2025. However, at a hearing on January 2 of this year, May’s attorney, Dustin Garrison asked that both the deadline and trial be continued, citing ongoing plea negotiations, “I don’t think we’ll need a trial.”
“We don’t have a resolution at this point,” said Garrison. “I’m sure it will get resolved.”
District Court Judge David J.A. Bargen agreed and set a new trial date for June 26, 2025.
May appeared in Jefferson County District Court on Thursday, May 1, 2025, which was the deadline for any plea agreement. Garrison did not appear. Instead, attorney Lyle Koenig was asked to fill in by Garrison the previous night. No reason for Garrison’s absence was provided.
Koenig asked the judge to extend the plea deadline once again, “I wish to advise the court that we wish to file a motion to dismiss. We believe there’s a constitutional issue involved in this case, and what to file a motion that informs the court and addresses that issue.”
Garrison had filed a notice in district court of his intention to challenge the constitutionality of that law on October 2, 2024, which said, in part, “Notice is hereby given to the following entities of the Defendant’s intent to challenge the constitutionality of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1206. Indeed, said statute is unconstitutional and denies Defendant of his rights under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
County Attorney Joseph Casson offered no objection.
Judge Bargen asked, “Was there not a reason we couldn’t have raised this earlier?”
Koenig said, “The authority that Mr. Garrison is relying on comes out of the Fourth Circuit. My understanding is that there’s been some activity in that case. The Attorney General of the United States was going to appeal it to the Supreme Court. She declined to do so. Therefore, the decision of the fourth Fourth Circuit still stands, and I don’t know when all of that activity occurred. It may be that’s why Mr. Garrison didn’t raise it prior to today.”
“I believe procedurally, the constitutional issue as I understand it,” said Casson. “Is challenging the constitutionality of the prohibition of felons having firearms. That statute, and my understanding of the theory is that it is applied unconstitutionally to this particular defendant. The history of the cases have been that, if a felon has been convicted of a non violent felony, that then the courts have currently ruled that prohibition for the firearm is unconstitutionally applied to those individuals because it’s a violation of the Second Amendment. That’s what I understand the theory to be in the cases.”
“The problem is, when you’re challenging the constitutionality of the statute that occurs after there’s a conviction,” said Casson. “Mr. Koenig characterizes this as a motion to dismiss. Again, if that’s based on that constitutional issue, procedurally, that should come after the conviction.”
Judge Bargen agreed to postpone the trial once again. The new date is July 29, 2025. Deadline for a plea agreement is June 12, 2025.
May remains free on a $80,000 (10 percent) bond.
