650 F.Supp.3d 1235
W.D. Okla.2023Background
- Two defendants (Joel Keenan Lewis and Lequevin Kelley) were indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) for possessing firearms while being unlawful users of controlled substances on specified dates.
- Both moved to dismiss post-Bruen, challenging § 922(g)(3) under the Second Amendment; Kelley also raised a vagueness-as-applied claim (effectively facial).
- Government argued certain persons (e.g., unlawful drug users) lack Second Amendment protection (a status-based exclusion) and relied on historical analogues to justify § 922(g)(3).
- Court rejected the government’s status-based shortcut, holding Second Amendment inquiry focuses on conduct, not categorical status.
- Court held vagueness challenges premature under Tenth Circuit precedent absent a developed factual record.
- Applying Bruen, the court used the more demanding “distinctly similar” analogue standard (out of abundance of caution) but found adequate historical analogues (laws disarming mentally ill/intoxicated/untrustworthy persons) and denied both motions to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vagueness of § 922(g)(3) | Gov: statute is clear; enforcement appropriate | Defs: statute is unconstitutionally vague (facial/as-applied) | Denied as premature — vagueness requires developed factual record (per Tenth Circuit) |
| Status-based exclusion from Second Amendment | Gov: unlawful drug users/addicts are not "law-abiding" so have no Second Amendment rights | Defs: status alone cannot negate Second Amendment protection; focus is on conduct | Court rejected government's status-based approach; rights inquiry must focus on conduct |
| Which Bruen analogue standard applies | Gov: more lenient “relevantly similar” standard should apply | Defs: more demanding “distinctly similar” standard applies | Court assumed the stricter “distinctly similar” standard (but found resolution unnecessary because government met it) |
| Adequacy of historical analogue for § 922(g)(3) | Gov: historical laws disarming mentally ill/intoxicated/untrustworthy persons are analogues to § 922(g)(3) | Defs: no sufficiently similar historical analogue to disarm current drug users | Court held historical tradition (colonial and later laws disarming mentally ill/intoxicated/dangerous persons) is an adequate analogue; § 922(g)(3) upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (historical-analogue test governs firearm regulations)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (recognizes individual right to bear arms and permits some historic exceptions, e.g., mentally ill)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (incorporation of Second Amendment principles; reiterates exceptions)
- United States v. Wells, 38 F.4th 1246 (Tenth Circuit: vagueness challenges require factual record)
- United States v. Reed, 114 F.3d 1067 (vagueness review depends on case-specific facts)
- United States v. Wilson, 979 F.3d 889 (§ 922(g)(3) requires ongoing/contemporaneous use)
- United States v. Edmonds, 348 F.3d 950 (defining current use requirement for § 922(g)(3) prosecutions)
- United States v. Cook, 914 F.3d 545 (describes “regular and ongoing” use standard applied to § 922(g)(3))
- United States v. Yancey, 621 F.3d 681 (habitual drug users are analogous to mentally ill for firearms restrictions)