98 F.4th 906
8th Cir.2024Background
- Devonte Veasley pleaded guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) by possessing a firearm while unlawfully using or being addicted to a controlled substance.
- After Veasley's plea, the Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, which emphasized historical tradition in Second Amendment analyses.
- Veasley sought to have his plea withdrawn or indictment dismissed, arguing that § 922(g)(3) was unconstitutional under Bruen.
- The district court denied these motions; on appeal, only a facial Second Amendment challenge to the statute was available.
- The Eighth Circuit reviewed the constitutionality of § 922(g)(3) de novo, considering both the historical and doctrinal framework after Bruen.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is § 922(g)(3) unconstitutional on its face | All applications of § 922(g)(3) violate Second Amendment post-Bruen | There are legitimate historical analogues for disarming some drug users | No; statute is not facially unconstitutional |
| Are there historical firearms regulations analogous to § 922(g)(3)? | Lack of analogous historical regulation; past controls focused on conduct, not status | Analogues exist in restrictions on dangerous individuals (e.g., mentally ill, those misusing arms) | Sufficiently analogous regulations exist |
| Should prior Eighth Circuit precedent (Seay) control post-Bruen? | Bruen requires fresh historical analysis | Seay remains binding as § 922(g)(3) is "presumptively lawful" under Heller | Seay controls; analysis consistent with precedent |
| Does § 922(g)(3) allow any constitutional applications? | No set of circumstances under which it is valid | Statute applies constitutionally to dangerous drug users analogous to history | Some constitutional applications exist |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognized individual Second Amendment right but listed exceptions for longstanding gun prohibitions)
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) (established historical tradition test for Second Amendment restrictions)
- United States v. Seay, 620 F.3d 919 (8th Cir. 2010) (rejected a facial Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(3))
- United States v. Sitladeen, 64 F.4th 978 (8th Cir. 2023) (applied binding pre-Bruen precedent to firearm regulation)
- United States v. Jackson, 69 F.4th 495 (8th Cir. 2023) (discussed scope of as-applied and facial challenges to gun prohibitions)