United States v. Wansolo Hughley, 691 F. App'x 278

Wansolo Hughley, previously convicted in the 1990s of nonviolent felonies (drug possession, unlawful weapon use), was charged in 2014 under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for possessing two pistols and pled guilty while reserving an appeal of the indictment dismissal refusal.
Hughley challenged § 922(g)(1) as-applied, arguing the statute violates his Second Amendment rights because his prior felonies were nonviolent and remote in time.
The government defended § 922(g)(1) as a lawful restriction on firearm possession by felons aimed at reducing crime and preventing misuse of firearms.
The Eighth Circuit reviewed the constitutional question de novo and considered whether Hughley showed he was "no more dangerous than a typical law-abiding citizen."
The court emphasized legislative purpose: § 922(g)(1) targets persons with serious criminal records (punishable by >1 year), not solely those with violent histories, and seeks to keep firearms from those who may misuse them.
The court affirmed, finding Hughley’s repeated felonies, probation violations, and facts of the 2014 arrest (firearms plus illegal drugs) showed he was not typical of law-abiding citizens and did not demonstrate unique constitutional harms from the permanent ban.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as-applied to Hughley under the Second Amendment	Hughley: his prior felonies were nonviolent and remote, so the permanent ban unlawfully burdens his right to bear arms	Govt: § 922(g)(1) is a presumptively lawful restriction aimed at keeping firearms from those with serious criminal records regardless of violence element	Affirmed: statute constitutional as-applied; Hughley failed to show he is "no more dangerous than a typical law-abiding citizen" and did not raise unique harms from the permanent ban
Whether the age of prior convictions or availability of restoration avenues makes the ban unreasonable as-applied	Hughley: remote convictions and the effectively permanent ban make the statute unreasonable for him	Govt: age of convictions and availability of restoration procedures do not remove the statute’s legitimate objectives	Held: Age and permanence did not establish a constitutional violation for Hughley

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (established individual right to bear arms while acknowledging presumptively lawful regulations)
Small v. United States, 544 U.S. 385 (2005) (Congress may disarm those who have shown they cannot be trusted with firearms)
United States v. Woolsey, 759 F.3d 905 (8th Cir. 2014) (upheld § 922(g)(1) against as-applied challenge where defendant had violent felonies)
United States v. Bena, 664 F.3d 1180 (8th Cir. 2011) (discussing standard of review for Second Amendment claims)
United States v. Seay, 620 F.3d 919 (8th Cir. 2010) (facial-challenge standard: must show no set of circumstances renders statute valid)
Schrader v. Holder, 704 F.3d 980 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (discussing purpose of federal gun-control laws and the two-step approach)
Huddleston v. United States, 415 U.S. 814 (1974) (legislative purpose to curb crime by restricting firearms from certain classes)
Dickerson v. New Banner Inst., Inc., 460 U.S. 103 (1983) (statutory objectives may include keeping firearms from persons likely to misuse them)
Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011) (illustrates the two-step Second Amendment analysis used by some circuits)