U.S. v. YANCEY U.S. Appl. 7th Cir. Drug habbit and guns = bad. Affirmed.

[Crom]

District of Columbia v. Heller,SeeUnited States v. Burchard, 580 F.3d 341, 352 (6th Cir. 2009); United States v. Patterson, 431 F.3d 832, 839 (5th Cir. 2005). Yancey conceded the violation but moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the statute violates the Second Amendment. Yancey cited Heller, which holds that the Second Amendment preserves an individual's right to keep handguns for self-defense. 128 S. Ct. at 2821-22; United States v. Jackson, 555 F.3d 635, 636 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 147 (2009). Although Yancey was carrying his gun outside his home, he argued that Heller shields him from prosecution because he is not a felon and the weapon is commonplace. And, Yancey continued, the government would need, but could not articulate, a compelling interest to justify dispossessing habitual drug users of their guns. The district court denied the motion, concluding that nothing in HellerSee United States v. Greve,Heller, and no other circuit has published an opinion deciding its constitutionality. Our full court, however, did recently evaluate whether the Constitution permits Congress to bar those convicted of domestic violence crimes from possessing firearms, seeSee United States v. Skoien, No. 08-3770, 2010 WL 2735747, at *3 (7th Cir. July 13, 2010) (en banc).

....

In sum, we find that Congress acted within constitutional bounds by prohibiting illegal drug users from firearm possession because it is substantially related to the important governmental interest in preventing violent crime.


AFFIRMED.

READ MORE: U.S. v. YANCEY

[bwiese]

And California-specific Prop 15 crap is totally irrelevant to this.

Of course, the potheads will read this and forget about it 2 hrs later

[Crom]

And California-specific Prop 15 crap is totally irrelevant to this.

Of course, the potheads will read this and forget about it 2 hrs later

Right. I read the whole case on the Leagle site and basically, I understand it that if someone habitually uses illegal drugs, regardless if they have had a prior conviction or not, then they are a prohibited person and should not own / possess guns.

The California Proposition 19, the Marijuana Legalization Initiative (2010), may have some jumping for joy, but if they happen to own guns too, and especially if they wish to carry well then there is going to be a conflict of law.

[CHS]

In sum, we find that Congress acted within constitutional bounds by prohibiting illegal drug users from firearm possession because it is substantially related to the important governmental interest in preventing violent crime.

Hahaha, Pot heads and violent crime.

Now THATS comedy gold.

[J.D.Allen]

Not sure I'm all that broken up over this one

[CSACANNONEER]

And California-specific Prop 15 crap is totally irrelevant to this.

Of course, the potheads will read this and forget about it 2 hrs later

Wait. What.......................Uh..................... .Oh yeaaaaaaaaaaaaa...............Hey..............Did you say something?????????




J/K

I'm only a habitual user of powdery substances like H50BMG, Varget, UC, 700X, etc.

[Zomgie]

Hahaha, Pot heads and violent crime.

Now THATS comedy gold.

Hey! Violence instigated by marijuana users is a SERIOUS issue! Pot heads are just as dangerous as users of any other hard drug...













...if you happen to be a bag of cheetos

[J.D.Allen]

Hahaha, Pot heads and violent crime.

Now THATS comedy gold.

Really? You think so? You apparently haven't seen how much gang bangers love to smoke pot...

[CHS]

Right. I read the whole case on the Leagle site and basically, I understand it that if someone habitually uses illegal drugs, regardless if they have had a prior conviction or not, then they are a prohibited person and should not own / possess guns.

The California Proposition 19, the Marijuana Legalization Initiative (2010), may have some jumping for joy, but if they happen to own guns too, and especially if they wish to carry well then there is going to be a conflict of law.

Interesting how they define the actual illegal part:

An "unlawful user" is someone, like Yancey, who regularly ingests controlled substances in a manner except as prescribed by a physician.

This would lead me to believe that consuming pot in CA with a doctors recommendation (medical marijuana) would NOT make someone an unlawful user, and not in fact bar them from owning, purchasing, or possessing firearms.

[boxbro]

Really? You think so? You apparently haven't seen how much gang bangers love to smoke pot...

They drink milk too.

[OleCuss]

OK, I need a little education.

Does that phrase about "because it is substantially related to the important governmental interest in preventing violent crime" mean that they applied "intermediate scrutiny", or is that "rational basis"? It didn't sound to me like that would be "strict scrutiny".

[CHS]

Really? You think so? You apparently haven't seen how much gang bangers love to smoke pot...

So smoking pot makes them violent gang bangers?

I'm not denying that certain undesirable types of people smoke pot (hippies, gang bangers), but to say that smoking pot LEADS to violent crime is absolutely ignorant and absurd. I might buy the argument if different drugs were involved, but not pot.

[NightOwl]

Interesting. It seems that the court used intermediate scrutiny on this issue.

But though Congress may exclude certain categories of persons from firearm possession, the exclusion must be more than merely "rational," Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2817 n.27, and must withstand "some form of strong showing," Skoien, 2010 WL 2735747, at *3. (We have thus far, like the Supreme Court, declined to wade into the "`levels of scrutiny' quagmire," id.; see also Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2817 (striking down D.C.'s law "[u]

As the level of scrutiny hasn't really been set in stone yet, this case might breathe life again at some point if it gets set to strict, as it should be. Not that this should be illegal anyway, as the "compelling government interest" isn't accurate. In spite of JD Allens point about gang bangers smoking pot, the overwhelming majority of pot smokers are normal, otherwise law abiding citizens, not committing violent crimes. If I read this correctly, the court is making the claim that pot smokers are, by and large, violent criminals, and by stripping their 2nd amendment rights it does...idk, something?

[Legasat]

Hahaha, Pot heads and violent crime.

Now THATS comedy gold.

I suppose they might rob a 7-11 for Twinkies or something

[Lulfas]

Interesting how they define the actual illegal part:



This would lead me to believe that consuming pot in CA with a doctors recommendation (medical marijuana) would NOT make someone an unlawful user, and not in fact bar them from owning, purchasing, or possessing firearms.

You know, that is actually a damned good point. They specifically carved out an exception for drugs prescribed by a doctor. Since medical marijuana is prescribed by a doctor, this would seem to cover it just fine.