5th Circuit voided a federal law preventing unlawful drug users from possessing guns

The 5th Circuit Court is the court that the Supreme court just temporarily allowed the enforcement of the ATF 80% regulations.


Together, they held the law violated the Second Amendment and did not align with the Supreme Court's test established in Bruen v. New York Rifle & Pistol Association, which established that firearms laws must conform with the nation's "historical tradition of firearm regulation.”


//////////////////////////////////////////////////
Federal gun law used in Hunter Biden case voided by appeals court

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit on Wednesday voided a federal law preventing unlawful drug users from possessing guns, citing the Supreme Court's landmark decision from last year.
Under a federal statute known as 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), anyone who is an "unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance," including marijuana, can be banned from possessing a gun and face up to 10 years in prison for violating the law.
The decision only affects Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi but means the man who brought the challenge, Patrick Daniels, will have his July 2022 conviction under the law tossed out. He has been sentenced to nearly four years in prison and three years of probation after he was arrested in April 2022 after law enforcement officers searched his car and found marijuana along with two loaded firearms.

The case is known as U.S. v. Daniels, and the decision was written by Judge Jerry Smith, joined by Judges Stephen Higginson and Don Willett. Together they held the law violated the Second Amendment and did not align with the Supreme Court's test established in Bruen v. New York Rifle & Pistol Association, which established that firearms laws must conform with the nation's "historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

"Just as there was no historical justification for disarming a citizen of sound mind, there is no tradition that supports disarming a sober citizen who is not currently under an impairing influence," Smith wrote. "Indeed, it is helpful to compare the tradition surrounding the insane and the tradition surrounding the intoxicated side-by-side."

The federal statute applied not only when a person is intoxicated but also when they are sober and in possession of a controlled substance.

The opinion goes on to suggest that the founders "institutionalized the insane and stripped them of their guns; but they allowed alcoholics to possess firearms while sober."

 

Given the Clear and Established Fact that Marijuana is medically proven to offer pain relief and other benefits, this is LONG OVER DUE! About time the Courts recognize a medically sound drug cannot be used to strip a person of a right!

We all know that recreational users abuse this, BUT, the gov needs to be removed from making such judgements from the bench citing case law that has no basis in history for the 2nd rights of the citizens!

 

"after he was arrested in April 2022 after law enforcement officers searched his car and found marijuana along with two loaded firearms."

How many pounds? - Tons?

don't know the specifics of that case - but know the coppers didn't ram it up solid over some personal use couple of roaches - the guy was a f___cking dirt bag dealer - probably with a long record of other perverted crap - not eligible for gun possession for allll the felonies ....

run him up on the other crap in his life - send him away for 20 instead of the 10 >>> less dirt bags in this world - all the better

 

The way I read this is it doesn't matter if it was marijuana or cocaine or etc. "...no historical justification for disarming a citizen of sound mind, there is no tradition that supports disarming a sober citizen who is not currently under an impairing influence..."

What I don't understand is how they can deny a person that has completed their prison sentence, a felon, and deny them the 2A? I do not understand how they justify this.

 

Is a chomo not a chomo after he does his time?

 

I'm not sure what a 'chomo' is, Google says it may be a 'child molester' but it matters not. What I don't understand is if a person pays for the crime by serving out their sentence and is discharge what is the justification for denying them the 2nd Amendment, especially given that many see the 1st and 2nd and a few others as God given rights. I am not saying it's right or wrong but how do they justify it?

 

I think if its a violent crime that got them in there they should lose some rights, unless they can proove they deserve to get the rights back. If a guy robs someone and shoots em i dont think they should beable to buy a gun theh day they get out of prison. Just my 2 cents.

 

Given weed is legal on various levels around the country, and meth & fentanyl out of control killing thousands, no LEO will get in a twist over small quantities of weed.
Minimum first step, it needs to be removed as a Schedule 1 drug.


List of Schedule I drugs (US) - Wikipedia

 

I say come up with some period of time , after the crime and sentencing ,, and no other string of offenses , to reestablish their gun rights .

 

ALL gun restrictions and laws are unconstitutional, in my opinion.

 

Some heinous crimes are not excusable nor are those who commit them excused for the acts they committed against the innocents. Luke 17:2 tells us of this. Some acts just are not pardonable upon this earth. This being said, no matter how much time they serve I do not wish them in my community. I do not wish them in my nation nor do I wish them the right to have firearms or any weapon because of the pain they have inflicted upon a innocent and helpless child. I have no mercy or whataboutism with this.

 

Okay, if this is case, and I can understand and agree with it then why not the death penalty? Why this silly facade? Why stick them in a cage and spew this tripe about rehabilitation, and suffer the cost of it and prisoner upkeep if the individual cannot be forgiven and returned to society...WTH? Sorry, but I don't get it. If their crime is so heinous then stand them up against the nearest wall or take them and a rope to the nearest tree.

This makes complete sense to me and gives the felon a path back to society and full citizenship. I think the key word here is 'no-violent'... I still would say if a violent crime is committed and after full due process then the penalty is removing them from society permanently by death. I would like to see data on how many 'violent felons' actually are fully rehabilitated and never return to crime again to see if the system is working. I'll try to do this today. I do know that there are numerous convicted individuals that were in prison which new evidence from DNA have freed.

 

I believe if it were up to many of us they would upon conviction be taken out behind the courthouse and shot or some other prescribed form of execution. By the time a child molester is caught it is not their first rodeo. Far too many warning signs were also probably ignored by those around the reprobate. For some reason many people are afraid to get their hands dirty. They somehow believe that a leopard can change it's spots. I do not subscribe to that theory so you are in some aspect correct that why isn't it a capitol offense with a death sentence immediately handed down. I think for asking that specific question you might be asking the wrong person to be able to effect a real change.

 

@4x4 In short, I am all for giving someone a second chance; however, there are some offensives that if proven, without a doubt, the individual is indeed guilty then the death penalty needs to be given and carried out promptly. I honestly, see no sense in lifelong incarceration as I do not see this giving justice to the aggrieved or society.

 

But 3 strikes and your OUT!!!

 

Wonder how many of our founding fathers were guilty of rape, domestic violence and being serial drunkards.

If the charge is punishable by death, life imprisonment as a possibility outcome, then yeah you probably shouldn't get your rights back ever. Unless it's proven that their conviction was bogus due to new evidence or suppression of innocence.

 

The 13th amendment says that if you're convicted of a felony, then you're a slave not a citizen. Slaves don't have rights.

 

I believe this is what you are talking about... “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
While this explains their removal of rights during their incarceration, their servitude, it does not explain nor justify why those rights are denied after completion of sentence and their return to society. However, I believe I found the answer to my question.

Question: How can it be justified to deny a non-violent felon 2nd Amendment rights.
Answer: It can't be justified because it isn't.

Federal Appeals Court Rules Second Amendment Protects Non-Violent Felon's Gun Rights. The federal government can't bar a Pennsylvania man from owning guns for life over his food stamp fraud conviction. That's the ruling handed down by a full panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday.
" 6 June 2023 - The federal government can’t bar a Pennsylvania man from owning guns for life over his food stamp fraud conviction. That’s the ruling handed down by a full panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday. The court found no historical basis for banning Bryan Range from buying firearms over a conviction for lying on a food stamp application in 1995. It also found he is included among those protected by the Second Amendment and concluded it is unconstitutional to block him from having guns, reversing a 2022 ruling by a three-judge panel from the same court.

“We agree with Range that, despite his false statement conviction, he remains among ‘the people’ protected by the Second Amendment,” Judge Thomas Hardiman, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote for an 11-4 majority that included two Biden, an Obama, and a Clinton appointee in Range v. AG. “And because the Government did not carry its burden of showing that our Nation’s history and tradition of firearm regulation support disarming Range, we will reverse and remand.”

EDIT: Obviously, this doesn't explain violent felons and their denial of rights, specifically the 2A; however, this is much more complex and totally different topic ranging from they can never be trusted in society again to stand them up against a wall in place of incarceration to mental illness to...etc.

 

Agreed. I did not mean to suggest that I agree with my explanation, only that I had one. Many, many laws have been passed that directly contravene the constitution, highlighting the document's two tragic flaws, first; the mechanism in place to ensure that laws are constitutional is fundamentally untrustworthy, and second; it has no mechanism to prevent it's own perversion or destruction, which is how we've come to find ourselves in this situation. While the issue of whether or not to allow violent felons their natural right to keep and bear arms is complicated, that people's right to keep and bear arms is infringed upon daily can neither be denied, nor justified.