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

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); 11 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); New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. (2022); Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 411 (2016) (per curiam); United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). 6. Whether the plaintiffs claim against the court clerks is barred by qualified immunity. See Ashcroft u. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735, 741 (2011); Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982); Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986); Wilson v. Lamp, 901 F.3d 981, 986 (8th Cir. 2018). 7. Whether the court clerks were performing discretionary or ministerial acts when they decided to interfere with plaintiffs Second Amendment constitu tional right and thus not entitled to qualified immunity. See Cheeks v. Belmar, 80 F.4d 872 (8th Cir. 2023); Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 588 (1998); Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 196 n.14 (1984); Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 816 —18 (1982); Holloman exrel. Holloman v. Harland, 370 F.3d 1252, 1264 (11th Cir. 2004); Wilson v. Lamp, 901 F.3d 981, 986 (8th Cir. 2018). 8. Whether plaintiffs procedural and substantive due process rights were violated by the court clerks by denying his Second Amendment rights without clear and direct orders from the judge and without clear iii routine documented protocol and procedure for the determination of what constitutes a “prohibited person ” as opposed to what actions to take WHEN a person is determined by the court to be a prohibited person. Court clerks can apply the procedure and protocols to a prohibited person but cannot make the determination about whether or not a person is prohibited from purchasing a firearm. This is a judicial decision. See Cheeks v. Belmar, 80 F.4d 872 (8th Cir. 2023); Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 346 (1986); Gordon v. Hansen, 168 F.3d 1109, 1114 (8th Cir. 1999); Keeper v. King, 130 F.3d 1309, 1314 (8th Cir. 1997); Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319; Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998). 9. Whether Hans Hol