Firearms and the Supreme Court. Fox News/Getty.
The Supreme Court has narrowed a federal law preventing drug users from purchasing and possessing firearms. Fox News. The law, which was used to prosecute Hunter Biden before he was pardoned by Joe Biden, said that anyone who uses illegal drugs was unable to posses firearms legally. The case was based on a Texas man who was arrested for admitting he smoked pot "every other day" while in possession of a firearm. The man was not intoxicated during his arrest, posed no threats to others and was not judged as an addict, it was only his statement that he was a drug user that got him in trouble.
The Court said this was not sufficient under the standard set by NYSRPA v Bruen which said that gun laws needed a historical precedent, and that wasn't present in this case. However, the ruling was narrow, stating that old habitual drunkard laws would be a sufficient historical precedent to ban addicts, presently intoxicated people and people that have previously proven to be dangerous on drugs. It also does not seem to cover harder drugs, like cocaine and heroin.
My Comment:
This is a strange ruling and kind of a hard one to explain. The ruling was very narrow, only saying the law was unconstitutional under very specific situations. The ruling is narrowed to marijuana and other similar drugs and probably won't help you if you are a user of hard drugs. If I understand the ruling correctly, it means that if you are a casual user of marijuana and you own a firearm, that no longer is enough for you to get charged with a violation of this law.
A pair of examples would be useful here. The case at hand would have been good to go under this charge because he would have passed the test now set by this ruling. He was not carrying a gun while using drugs. He did not use hard drugs. He was not addicted to drugs. He simply smoked pot a couple of times a week. Under this ruling he would not be charged.
But the Hunter Biden case? He would not have been helped due to this ruling. To review, Biden was charged with four crimes, lying on ATF form 4473, two counts of lying to a gun dealer and one count of possession a gun while being a user or addict of dangerous drugs. None of this would be changed by this ruling. Hunter Biden was in fact an addict of crack cocaine while he purchased a firearm, and crack cocaine is a dangerous drug. From what I understand, unless the ATF massively changes their rules or the law in question is massively changed as well, he would still be charged with all four crimes if he was arrested today. It fits well with the historical public drunkard laws so his charges would remain constitutional, assuming he wasn't pardoned.
I do think that this is a win for both gun rights and marijuana supporters. It was always silly that someone could get charged with a felony for using a drug that was legal in the state they used. Indeed, it's a major reason why I have never used marijuana. I understood that doing so would potentially ruin my gun rights and I could get charged for lying on form 4473 if I ever purchased another gun. I have no plans to smoke pot now, it's still illegal in my state and I have zero interest in getting high, but it is nice that if I ever choose to if I travel or the law changes here, I won't have to sacrifice my gun rights to do so.
Marijuana supporters will be happy as well. It's very clear that they seem to be winning the argument. I have never been a fan of pot and I think there have been real downsides for decriminalization of pot, but it's also clear that they have a ton of momentum. I would prefer if potheads all switched to alcohol given it's value as a social lubricant, despite it being a much more harmful drug, but that isn't in the cards. Either way, with pot being legal in some form in the majority of states and the drug being reclassified to a lower schedule, it's clear that marijuana supporters have been extremely effective in getting their goals accomplished.
No comments:
Post a Comment