Appeals court rules for man who challenged ban on illegal drug users possessing firearms

[roscoe]

Appeals court rules for man who challenged ban on illegal drug users possessing firearms

A federal appeals court ruled a ban on gun possession for users of illegal drugs is unconstitutional, as applied to a man who used marijuana. The three-judge panel ruled Wednesday that that Patrick…

thehill.com

I was wondering how this was going to be handled, if firearm possession is truly a constitutional right. Possession of marijuana isn't enough to prevent someone from voting, which is the other main constitutional right that you lose when convicted of a felony.

 

[DoubleMag]

''The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel reversed Daniels’s conviction Wednesday, finding the government did not pass the new test for gun restrictions outlined by the Supreme Court last summer: A law must be consistent with the nation’s historical regulation of firearms.''

Could this reference be the purportedly dysfunctional Bruen decision ?

 

[CapnMac]

For this to 'survive" for very long in Legal, we will want the actual decisions to quote from, and not news articles.
Lest we fall into debates about biased reporting, rather than debates on the language & interpretation of Statutes.

Bruen's "historical test" will present a superficial case in that there will not likely be found many laws from 1795-1865 barring RKBA dues to habitual use of narcotics. However, there are likely laws present that do cover those who are habitually--"notoriously" in contemporary language--intoxicated.

So, this is likely not an easy row to hoe.

There is the parallel issue of States refusing to enforce Federal Narcotics laws by fiat, which is not actually the argument, but will be drawn in despite that.

 

[wayneinFL]

For this to 'survive" for very long in Legal, we will want the actual decisions to quote from, and not news articles.
Lest we fall into debates about biased reporting, rather than debates on the language & interpretation of Statutes.

There is a link in the second paragraph of the article posted by the OP.

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/22/22-60596-CR0.pdf

 

[CapnMac]

There is a link in the second paragraph of the article posted by the OP.

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/22/22-60596-CR0.pdf

Thank you for the link. Legal, here at THR is pretty strict about having those links be explicit, and wanting at least some direct quoting.

This was interesting, from that text (emphasis in original not preserved):

Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 581 (emphasis added).
Even as a marihuana user, Daniels is a member of our political community. Therefore, he has a presumptive right to bear arms. By infringing
on that right, § 922(g)(3) contradicts the plain text of the Second Amendment.
True, Heller described the Second Amendment as applying to “law-abiding, responsible citizens.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 635. And Bruen used the
phrase “law-abiding” fourteen times, including in the opening sentence, where it says that the Second Amendment “protect the right of an ordin-
ary, law-abiding citizen to possess a handgun.” 142 S. Ct. at 2122 (emphasis added). The government seizes on that language and insists that the Second
Amendment does not extend to Daniels because he is a criminal

 

[roscoe]

I think that this is the logic here:

"But we cannot read too much into the Supreme Court’s chosen epithet. More than just “model citizen” enjoy the right to bear arms. United States v. Rahimi, 61 F.4th 443, 453 (5th Cir. 2023), cert. granted, No. 22-915, 2023 WL 4278450 (June 30, 2023). Indeed, Rahimi held that citizens accused of domestic violence still had Second Amendment rights. It reasoned that when Heller and Bruen used the phrase “law-abiding,” it was just “shorthand” to “exclude from the . . . discussion” the mentally ill and felons, people who were historically “stripped of their Second Amendment rights.” Id. at 452. All others are presumptively included in the Second Amendment’s ambit. Because Daniels is not a felon or mentally ill, Rahimi’s treatment of the “law-abiding” moniker suggests that he has presumptive Second Amendment rights as well."

 

[Oklahoma Hank]

Having read the main briefs, the case apparently will turn on whether intoxication is a historical analog to the marijuana prohibition.

 

[Phaedrus/69]

This is one to watch. DV is one of the most powerfully predictive factors on other kinds of crime. Whenever there's a mass shooting incident the pro gun guys say "we need mental health" but then block every attempt to deal with mental health. This one perhaps requires the wisdom of Solomon, a quality not in evidence in our current SCOTUS.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Thank you for the link. Legal, here at THR is pretty strict about having those links be explicit, and wanting at least some direct quoting.

This was interesting, from that text (emphasis in original not preserved):

Interesting.

One is not, in fact, a "criminal" in the legal system here in the United States until one is CONVICTED, correct?

So the mere accusation, or even the admission, of a person of having committed a criminal act should not be enough to meet this legal standard. There MUST be Due Process involved.