US District Court Strikes Drug/Gun Possession Law

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

denton

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
2,161
Location
Free state of Utah
Federal law makes someone who is an illegal user of a controlled substance, or a person that is addicted to one, a prohibited person.

US District Court in Utah just held that provision to be unconstitutional for vagueness. A single use 10 years ago might be disqualifying, or it might not.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I guess it's a 2A win, but I'm not too happy about druggies being entitled to possess firearms.

This case will almost certainly be appealed.
 
First, it would have been nice if you could have provided details, e. g., case name, case number, etc. so that we could track it down and find out exactly what’s happening. To discuss this from a law perspective we need more and more reliable details. For example, it would be one thing if the court found the law facially (i. e., void) unconstitutional or only unconstitutional under the particular facts of this case.

Second, since this is a trial court decision, it’s not precedent.
 
You know carrying, handling, and operating firearms while in a chemically altered state is really a bad idea. But the federal government does not recognize any difference between medical and recreational use of Marijuana, and there can be legitimate medical benefits. And while I've never smoked pot, there may have been incidents where I've enjoyed some of the more "spirited" products of Kentucky. I don't really see a bigger threat to society from a pothead than a habitual drunk.

YMMV, but if you want to keep firearms out of the hands of someone smoking meth, I'm not sure a question that obviously says "you need to lie here if you want to buy the gun" is real effective at achieving that end.
 
Pudge said:
You know carrying, handling, and operating firearms while in a chemically altered state is really a bad idea. But the federal government does not recognize any difference between medical and recreational use of Marijuana, and there can be legitimate medical benefits. And while I've never smoked pot, there may have been incidents where I've enjoyed some of the more "spirited" products of Kentucky. I don't really see a bigger threat to society from a pothead than a habitual …
Click to expand...

Swell, but we’re trying to find out what this court said.
 
Let’s try to pin this down. The OP wrote:
denton said:
Federal law makes someone who is an illegal user of a controlled substance, or a person that is addicted to one, a prohibited person.

US District Court in Utah just held that provision to be unconstitutional for vagueness. A single use 10 years ago might be disqualifying, or it might not.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I guess it's a 2A win, but I'm not too happy about druggies being entitled to possess firearms.

This case will almost certainly be appealed.
Click to expand...

So let me ask him. Denton, did you want to discuss the case and the court decision, or do you want to discuss, “…I'm not too happy about druggies being entitled to possess firearms.…”?
 
First, it would have been nice if you could have provided details, e. g., case name, case number, etc. so that we could track it down and find out exactly what’s happening. To discuss this from a law perspective we need more and more reliable details. For example, it would be one thing if the court found the law facially (i. e., void) unconstitutional or only unconstitutional under the particular facts of this case.
Click to expand...

UNITED STATES of America v. Jonathan Alexander MORALES-LOPEZ - Case No. 2:20-cr-00027-JNP - Signed 06/30/2022 - Jill N. Parrish, United States District Court Judge. That's here in Utah.

The court found the law facially unconstitutional.

did you want to discuss the case and the court decision, or do you want to discuss, “…I'm not too happy about druggies being entitled to possess firearms.…”?
Click to expand...

I just posted the news. I'm interested in people's responses and viewpoints, whatever those happen to be.
 
Riomouse911 said:
Same here. This looks to me like it was a defective Miranda rights case involving a suspected gun thief.

Stay safe.
Click to expand...
The possession charge came from this case. He was in possession of the stolen firearms, and was then found to be illegally in possession of a controlled substance, and was so charged.
 
All I saw in the link was a defective Miranda allowing a motion to suppress post-arrest statements to be granted. This tossed all the other stuff that followed the defective warning as fruits of the poisonous tree.

If a court ruled in this case that drug users stealing firearms cant be prosecuted for possession of a gun by an addict, it wouldn’t shock me. Many moons back USSC ruled in Haynes v.US you can’t prosecute felons for failing to register a gun because the act of registration by a prohibited person violated the 5th Amendment “self-incrimination” clause. :)

Stay safe.
 
Thank you. So it's vague without a blood test confirming illegal substances in his system? Or because possession of those substances doesn't necessarily equal unlawful use? Or is it vague because there are no perameters for how much or how often using is unlawful? If the wording in the law was changed from "unlawful use" to "use of unlawful" it would be simplified.

IF those convictions are tossed, it appears there are plenty of other charges to fall back on in this particular case.
 
This was a case where the Federal attorney stuck his nose in some place he shouldn't have been.

Convict them for the state charge on the illegal possession, convict him for the state charge for theft, but trying to get him on a Federal charge was an overreach.
 
1. The judge stated that she had great difficulty writing jury instructions that adequately defined illegal user or addict. Judges don't want to make those definitions, because that is the legislature's job.

2. During deliberations, the jury sent back a question to the judge, asking for clarification of what constituted an illegal user or addict. They were having trouble understanding.

3. The judge assigned the job of coming up with a definition to the prosecution, who struggled with it at length. Maybe she was trying to torment them??

So, yeah, the experience of the people carrying out the process pretty clearly indicates void for vagueness, at least to me. As someone pointed out, this trial does not set a precedent. The issue will probably linger with us for a while yet.

Lysanderxiii's explanation of the basic problem sounds right to me.
 
Last edited:
You guys remember the very entertaining "FPSRussia", with regular and select-fire guns on his Youtube channel? Some of you remember his fake Russian accent.

The "Feds" seemed then to have begun a crusade against him, partly instigated by the unexplained death of his video manager.

His very high-profile "dangerous weapons" (up to a 40 mm cannon - used on private land) attracted the ATF's attention.

Kyle had a modest amount of illegal THC or "honey oil" which he had distributed, making the Fed's crusade far easier.
His actual jail time seems to have been just two months or so, but he is no longer allowed to produce any gun videos for revenue or otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

U
  • Locked
2nd Amendment Case goes to US Supreme Court
Replies
1
Views
486
Car Knocker
C
M
  • Locked
D.C. resident seeks right to have functional rifles, shotguns
Replies
6
Views
648
Robert Hairless
R
Q
  • Locked
Utah Supreme Court, "U of U must allow guns on campus"
Replies
1
Views
338
Jorg Nysgerrig
J
danez71
  • Locked
Federal court strikes down DC anti-concealed carry law
Replies
20
Views
2K
Elkins45
Elkins45
J
  • Locked
District Court holds 922(o) void!
Replies
2
Views
461
jlbraun
J
Back
Top