Background
Jersom Mena appealed after pleading guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm as an unlawful user of a controlled substance in violation of Section eighteen United States Code Section nine hundred twenty-two subsection G three. He argued the district court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the statute is unconstitutional on its face under the Second Amendment.
The court’s reasoning
The court concluded that the district court properly denied the motion because Mena’s argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent. The court cited United States versus Veasley and Mader versus United States to establish that one panel is bound by the decision of a prior panel. The court further noted that the Supreme Court’s decision in United States versus Rahimi does not call into question this precedent, citing United States versus Deng.
What it means going forward
This decision reinforces the binding nature of Eighth Circuit precedent regarding Second Amendment challenges to firearm possession statutes for controlled substance users, limiting the ability of defendants to rely on recent Supreme Court rulings to overturn such convictions.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download