1. Whether the grant of the motion to dismiss was
an abuse of discretion, not based upon the undisputed
facts presented, and supported by only the erroneous
application of the relevant law.

2. Whether the district court 's conclusion that the
Plaintiff s complaint failed to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted was an abuse of discretion, not
supported by the facts presented, and a misapplication
of the relevant law. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662
(2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544
(2007); Federer v. Gephardt, 363 F.3d 754, 757 (8th
Cir. 2004); Rucci v. City of Pacific, 321 F.3d 651, 652
(8th Cir. 2003); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 (1974).

3. Whether the district court 's conclusion that
Plaintiffs complaint was barred due to sovereign
immunity as the plaintiff continues to be denied the
ability to purchase a firearm. Thus there is an ongoing
violation of federal law and the plaintiff is seeking
prospective relief, an Ex Parte exception to the
sovereign immunity defense. See Ex Parte Young, 209
U.S. 123 (1908); Kodiak Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. v. Burr,
932 F.3d 1125, 1131-32 (8th Cir. 2019); McDaniel v.
Neal, 44 F.4th 1085, 1089 (8th Cir. 2022). Pennhurst
State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89
(1984). Will v. Michigan Dept, of State Police, 491 U.S.
58 (1989).

4. Whether the district court 's conclusion that the
plaintiffs complaint against defendants in their per
sonal capacities was barred by quasi-judicial immunity.
See Doe v. Chapman, 30 F.4th 766 (8th Cir. 2022);
Boyer v. County of Washington, 971 F.2d 100, 102 (8th
Cir. 1992); Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (1988);
Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991); Martin v. Hendren,
127 F.3d 720 (8th Cir. 1997); McCaw v. Winter, 745
F.2d 533, 534 (8th Cir. 1984); Robinson v. Freeze, 15
F.3d 107, 109 (8th Cir. 1994).

5. Whether the right to purchase a firearm is settled
law and a clearly estabhshed fundamental constitutional
right. See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570
(2008); McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010);

Whether the district court's dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint was an abuse of discretion and violated his Second Amendment and due process rights