Many Georgians with older, non-violent felony convictions have asked whether the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Second Amendment decisions change Georgia’s ban on firearm possession by convicted felons. On November 3, 2026, the Supreme Court of Georgia had that question in front of it, and decided not to answer it. In Trammell v. State, No. S26A1334 (Ga. Nov. 3, 2026) , the Court held that the trial court never had jurisdiction to rule on the constitutional challenge, because the defendant did not serve the Georgia Attorney General as Georgia law requires.

The lesson for anyone charged with a gun offense in Georgia is practical or challenging a case on constitutional grounds: a constitutional argument is only as good as the procedure used to raise it.

The Case

According to the opinion, written by Justice Ellington for a unanimous Court, a Floyd County jury convicted William Trammell, Jr. of possession of less than one ounce of marijuana (a misdemeanor) and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon under O.C.G.A. § 16-11-131(b). He was acquitted of possession with intent to distribute and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and the trial court directed a verdict of not guilty on a theft-by-receiving charge. He received 12 months on the marijuana count and ten years (four in prison, the rest on probation) on the firearm count.

The firearm conviction rested on three prior felonies: second-degree criminal damage to property, theft by taking, and fleeing and attempting to elude. Before trial, Trammell filed a general demurrer arguing that § 16-11-131(b) violates the Second Amendment as applied to him, because it permanently bans all felons from possessing firearms without distinguishing between violent and non-violent offenders.

The trial court denied the demurrer. It cited Landers v. State, 250 Ga. 501, 299 S.E.2d 707 (1983), which upheld the statute under the Georgia Constitution, and it applied the framework of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), concluding that felons as a class are “presumptively excluded from firearm possession.” It denied his motion for new trial for the same reasons.

The Problem: No Notice to the Attorney General

On appeal, the Attorney General filed an amicus brief raising an issue no one had raised below: Trammell never served the Attorney General with notice of his constitutional challenge. The record showed no notice, and Trammell did not dispute that none was given. Because the issue concerned subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court explained, it could not be waived and could be raised at any time.

The statute at issue, O.C.G.A. § 9-4-7(c), provides that when a statute “is alleged in an action for declaratory judgment or as a part of any other action to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, the Attorney General of the state shall be served with a copy of the proceeding and shall be entitled to be heard in defense of” it. The Court explained that the purpose of the requirement is to “ensure that the State has the opportunity to defend its laws in court before they are declared invalid,” quoting Daniel v. Amicalola Elec. Membership Corp., 289 Ga. 437, 440, 711 S.E.2d 709 (2011), and that failure to serve the Attorney General deprives the trial court of jurisdiction over the constitutional claim, citing Williams v. Kaylor, 218 Ga. 576, 578–79, 129 S.E.2d 791 (1963).

Before 2022, the Court had held that this notice rule applied only to civil declaratory judgment actions. But in 2022 the General Assembly added the words “or as a part of any other action,” and in Chestnut Ridge, LLC v. Hall County Board of Tax Assessors, 323 Ga. 150, 924 S.E.2d 331 (2025), the Court held that the service requirement now reaches any action in which a statute is alleged to be unconstitutional.

What the Court Held

Trammell extends that reasoning to criminal cases. The Court reasoned that:

• Under O.C.G.A. § 9-2-1, “action” includes a “penal action,” and a criminal prosecution is “the paradigm enforcement of penal law.”
• The words “any other action” are expansive, so they “plainly include[] challenges to the constitutionality of a statute raised in a criminal prosecution.”
• Because Trammell did not comply, “the trial court and, consequently this Court, lack jurisdiction to consider” the constitutional question.

The Court therefore vacated the portion of the trial court’s order denying the motion for new trial that ruled on the Second Amendment challenge and remanded so that Trammell can serve the Attorney General and the Attorney General can have the opportunity to appear and defend the statute before the trial court rules.

Just as important is what the Court did not do. It stated expressly that it “express[es] no opinion on the merits of the constitutional question or the trial court’s analysis of that question.” Trammell does not hold that § 16-11-131(b) is unconstitutional for non-violent felons, and it does not hold that the statute is constitutional either. The opinion also does not address Trammell’s marijuana conviction. That question is now back before the trial court.

Note: The opinion was issued November 3, 2026, and on its face is subject to modification on motion for reconsideration and editorial revision before it appears in the official Georgia Reports. It does not yet have a reporter citation.

What This Means If You Are Facing a Georgia Gun Charge

• Constitutional challenges must be raised correctly. After Trammell, a defendant who argues in a Georgia criminal case that a statute is unconstitutional, whether by demurrer, motion, or motion for new trial, should serve the Attorney General with a copy of the proceeding under § 9-4-7(c). Without it, the trial court cannot rule on the challenge, and an appellate court will not reach it either.
• Timing matters, but the defect may be curable. In Trammell, as in Chestnut Ridge, the remedy was a remand to allow service, not a final loss of the argument. The Court pointed to Daniel, where service on the Attorney General made after the issue was raised at a hearing, months before the trial court ruled, was sufficient. Still, the safest course is to serve the Attorney General when the challenge is first filed.
• The as-applied Second Amendment question remains open in this case. The Supreme Court of Georgia did not decide whether permanently disarming a person with only non-violent felony convictions is consistent with the Second Amendment. Uncertain: how the trial court, and ultimately the appellate courts, will resolve that question on remand is not known.
• Other defenses still matter. Many firearm cases turn on ordinary issues: whether the State can prove possession (including constructive possession), whether the search was lawful, and whether the prior conviction actually qualifies. The statute also excludes a person who has been pardoned and, by the terms of the pardon, expressly authorized to possess a firearm. O.C.G.A. § 16-11-131(c). Every case is different, and an early review of the facts and the record is important.

Why This Matters

Constitutional arguments in criminal cases can be powerful, but Trammell shows how a procedural step outside the four corners of the criminal case — notice to the Attorney General — can determine whether a court ever reaches the merits. Defendants and their families should work with criminal defense counsel who know both the substance of Georgia’s gun laws and the procedural requirements for challenging them.

This post is general information, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case is different, and the outcome of any case depends on its own facts and the law. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

If you or a loved one is facing a firearm, DUI, or other criminal charge in Georgia, contact George C. Creal, Jr., P.C., Trial Lawyers, to discuss your case. Visit www.georgecreal.com or call 404-333-0706.