United States v. LaVance Cooper, 127 F.4th 1092

LaVance Cooper was convicted after a bench trial for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) (possession of a firearm by a drug user), based on stipulated facts that he regularly used marijuana and had done so two days before being found with a firearm during a traffic stop.
Cooper contended that his prosecution under § 922(g)(3) violated the Second Amendment, especially since he posed no specific threat, and his marijuana use was not recent to the time of firearm possession.
The district court took a categorical approach, holding that drug users as a class could be disarmed, with no room for individualized as-applied constitutional challenges under the Second Amendment.
The Eighth Circuit found this approach inconsistent with its precedent and Supreme Court guidance, which require examination of whether the individual poses a danger similar to those disarmed under Founding-era analogues.
The appellate court vacated the conviction and remanded the case, instructing the district court to assess, on an individualized basis, whether Cooper’s circumstances justify his disarmament under historical tradition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does § 922(g)(3) always bar drug users from Second Amendment protection?	Cooper: Categorical ban is unconstitutional, as not all drug users are dangerous.	U.S.: Congress can categorically disarm all drug users.	Categorical ban unconstitutional; individualized assessment necessary.
Is Cooper’s as-applied challenge to § 922(g)(3) viable under the Second Amendment?	Cooper: As-applied challenge valid since he posed no threat and use was not contemporaneous with possession.	U.S.: Lawful to disarm all drug users regardless of threat level or timing.	Remanded for individualized assessment; categorical denial rejected.
Must individual dangerousness be shown for disarmament to comply with historical tradition?	Cooper: Disarmament only allowed if individual poses a credible threat.	U.S.: Membership in defined category (drug user) suffices for disarmament.	Only individuals posing a credible threat can be disarmed per tradition.
Should the record be supplemented for individualized finding of threat or dangerousness?	Cooper: No evidence of dangerousness, should present additional facts.	U.S.: Self-defense is not a valid justification for possession by drug user.	Case remanded for further factual development on individualized threat.

United States v. Veasley, 98 F.4th 906 (8th Cir. 2024) (recognized some as-applied challenges to § 922(g)(3) are available and analogized to Founding-era regulations)
N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) (established the need for consistency with historical tradition in Second Amendment cases)
United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024) (emphasized individual findings of dangerousness for disarmament laws to be constitutional)
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (confirmed the individual right to possess firearms for self-defense)
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (applied Second Amendment protections to the states per the Fourteenth Amendment)