United States of America v. Keshon Daveon Baxter

Holding: The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to dismiss, holding that the defendant's conduct was analogous to historical traditions of disarming individuals who terrorize the public.
Standard: Bruen step two
Vote: Panel decision affirming the district court's denial of the motion to dismiss.
Practical effect: The decision clarifies that the government need only prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a drug user's conduct poses a credible threat to public safety to sustain a firearm possession charge under the Bruen framework.

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment against a defendant charged with possessing a firearm while an unlawful drug user. The court held that the defendant's conduct, involving gang violence and brandishing a weapon while under the influence of marijuana, fell within a historical tradition of disarming those who terrorize the public.

Background

Keshon Baxter was indicted for possessing a firearm as an unlawful drug user in violation of federal law. After a previous appeal resulted in a remand for insufficient findings, the district court held an evidentiary hearing and found that Baxter’s conduct was analogous to historical laws disarming those who terrorize the public. The district court then sentenced Baxter to sixty-four months in prison and three years of supervised release.

The court’s reasoning

The court applied the two-part Bruen test, first confirming that the Second Amendment’s plain text covers Baxter’s conduct as a drug user. The court then addressed whether the statute is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The court resolved the dispute over the standard of proof, holding that the government must demonstrate the historical analogue by a preponderance of the evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found that Baxter’s conduct, including gang altercations and fleeing from officers while in possession of a loaded firearm, was sufficiently analogous to Founding-era laws prohibiting individuals from terrorizing the people.

What it means going forward

The decision clarifies that the government need only prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a drug user’s conduct poses a credible threat to public safety to sustain a firearm possession charge under the Bruen framework.