United States v. Veasley, No. 23-1114 (8th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
Devonte Veasley was charged with possessing a firearm while using a controlled substance, following an incident where he shot at his drug dealer. Veasley pleaded guilty to the charge. However, after the Supreme Court ruled in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen that a New York law requiring "proper cause" to carry a firearm violated the Second Amendment, Veasley sought to withdraw his plea or have the indictment dismissed. He argued that the federal statute under which he was charged, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which criminalizes the possession of a firearm by someone using or addicted to a controlled substance, was facially unconstitutional. The district court did not allow him to withdraw his plea or dismiss the indictment.
On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit rejected Veasley's facial challenge to the statute. The court reasoned that the prohibition of firearm possession by drug users or addicts does not always violate the Second Amendment. The court drew analogies to historical regulations that restricted the rights of certain groups, such as the mentally ill and those who used firearms to terrorize others, to bear arms. The court concluded that, at least for some drug users, the statute imposes a comparable burden on the right to bear arms and serves a comparable justification. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: [Stras, Author, with Gruender and Kobes, Circuit Judges.] Criminal case - Criminal law. Second Amendment. Defendant shot his drug dealer during a deal gone bad. He pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm - a federal offense for someone using or addicted to a controlled substance under 18 U.S.C. ? 922(g)(3). A month later, the Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, which concluded that a state law requiring "proper cause" to carry a firearm violated the Second Amendment. Inspired by Bruen, defendant challenged the constitutionality of ? 922(g)(3), arguing that the district court should have allowed him to withdraw his plea or dismissed the indictment, rather than limit him to challenging the facial constitutionality of the statute. Consistent with United States v. Seay, we reject defendant's facial challenge to ? 922(g)(3) and, employing the historical analysis required by Bruen for an "as applied" challenge, we determine the statute does not criminalize mere possession; it requires another act, the taking of drugs, which itself can cause dangerous behavior. Defendant's decision to engage in illegal and dangerous conduct led to the temporary deprivation of his right to bear a firearm. Judge Gruender, concurring. [ April 15, 2024 ]
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.