The Georgia Supreme Court ruled on November 3, 2026, in the case of Trammell v. State (S26A1334), affecting the rights of non-violent felons regarding firearm possession. The court found that William Trammell, Jr. failed to properly notify the Attorney General of his constitutional challenge to a state law that restricts firearm possession for convicted felons. This ruling has implications for how similar cases may be handled in the future.

Trammell's case began when he was indicted by a grand jury in Floyd County. He faced charges including possession of less than one ounce of marijuana and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. After a jury trial, he was convicted on both counts and sentenced to 12 months in prison for the marijuana charge and ten years for the firearm charge. The firearm conviction was based on his prior felony convictions, which included non-violent offenses.

Before his trial, Trammell argued that the law prohibiting firearm possession for felons, specifically OCGA § 16-11-131(b), was unconstitutional as it created a permanent ban on firearm possession for all felons without distinction between violent and non-violent offenders. However, he did not notify the Attorney General of his constitutional challenge, which is a requirement under Georgia law.

The trial court denied Trammell's argument, stating that the law had been upheld as constitutional. The court referenced a previous decision that indicated felons are presumptively excluded from firearm possession. Trammell's appeal centered on the claim that this exclusion violated his Second Amendment rights.

In its ruling, the Georgia Supreme Court highlighted that Trammell's failure to serve the Attorney General with notice of his challenge deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to decide the constitutional issue. The court stated, "The trial court lacked jurisdiction to resolve Trammell’s constitutional challenge." This lack of jurisdiction meant that the trial court's ruling on the matter was invalid.

The court's opinion emphasized the importance of the notice requirement, which ensures that the state has the opportunity to defend its laws before they are deemed unconstitutional. The court noted that Trammell was required to serve the Attorney General because he was challenging the constitutionality of a statute as part of his criminal case.

As a result, the Supreme Court vacated the trial court's order denying Trammell's motion for a new trial and remanded the case back to the trial court. This allows Trammell to serve the Attorney General with notice of his constitutional challenge, enabling the state to defend the law. The court expressed no opinion on the merits of Trammell's constitutional argument or the trial court's previous analysis.

This ruling may have significant implications for other non-violent felons in Georgia who seek to challenge firearm possession laws. It underscores the procedural requirements that must be met before a court can consider the constitutionality of a statute. The decision reinforces the necessity for defendants to follow proper legal protocols when contesting laws that may impact their rights.

Looking ahead, it remains unclear whether Trammell will appeal the ruling further or if any related cases are pending that could also challenge the firearm possession laws for non-violent felons. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how similar challenges are handled in Georgia's legal system.