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

[Codelphious]

Has nothing to do with politics, but the law as it stands.

The Prop 15 people seem to have a big Failure to Read (or Failure to Comprehend).

Fine print is everything.

Actually, that depends on your definition of "law." The federal government has no authority to regulate substances under Constitutional law (see Amendments 18, 21). Hence, today, courts establish (bad) precedent, and case law follows as a means to subvert the law.

[NightOwl]

Pick one issue.

I support gun rights and think most drugs should be legalized to end the drug war.

I own guns but I don't smoke weed.

I have no problem with someone that thinks the same way but chooses to smoke weed and not posess guns.

Mixing the two is just asking for trouble and helps neither cause.

It helps neither cause, but it WILL most certainly happen. Either organizations back it, and start pushing forward a solid case on it to establish our rights, or our rights will get case-lawed away by individuals seeking to defend themselves in court and their well meaning attorneys. So, I seriously hope that CGF, SAF, NRA, etc, all get on the ball and team up with organizations like NORML to push a good case and establish beneficial case law all the way up the line to SCOTUS, or we're going to get bad precedent that will negatively impact firearms owners across the entire country for a long, long time.

Refusing to touch the drug issue as it relates to firearms will have an affect on firearms rights. The more things are allowed to encroach, the more our rights are eroded by one cause at a time.

Take these two things into account:

There are 250+ million privately-owned firearms in the United States.3 The number of guns typically rises by about 4.5 million every year,4 though between 2007-2008, firearm transactions cleared by the National Criminal Instant Background Check rose 14 percent.5

from http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactShe...=206&issue=007

1.(2008) For 2008, an estimated 117,325,000 Americans aged 12 or over (47% of the US population aged 12 and over) report having used an illicit drug at least once in their lifetimes.

Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2009). Results from the 2008 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings (Office of Applied Studies, NSDUH Series H-36, HHS Publication No. SMA 09-4434). Rockville, MD., pgs 242 & 243, Tables G.1 & G.2.
http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nsduh/2k8nsduh/2k8Results.pdf

There's going to be a lot of overlap, don't you think? Defend our rights absolutely, or they'll fall away piecemeal. Kind of like how we got in the situation we're in today.

[anthonyca]

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.

It's still illegal federally.

[jl123]

It's still illegal federally.

Federal drug laws are still Unconstitutional.

[anthonyca]

While federal law makes Marijuana a Schedule 1 narcotic (meaning no legitimate medical use) they have made it clear that they don't intend to hassle the CA medicinal marijuana system. I'm guessing that if CA passes general legalization they probably wont hassle the druggies out here over that either. Dispensaries and medicinal grow operations get raided all the time, but not because they're violating federal law, its because they're not being run as non-profit coops like the CA law demands of them.

Lets say that generalized legalization does end up going through. Somebody is found to have some weed and a gun, seemingly violating the federal ban on habitual drug users owning firearms. In this situation, no other laws are broken, state or federal. Do you guys think that local law enforcement would be doing anything about it? Or would they not bother since they are beholden to the state rather than the fed gov?

What is it with pro pot people and denial? The Feds just spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and possibly millions prosecuting this dude. But for some reason they won't do it anymore?

Local cops may not have something to charge a pot head with, but they will kick it up to the Feds more after its legal in Cali.

I am for a form of legalized drugs and no drug war, but I can see what really happens. The government hates us having guns. These "in the government's interest" laws and ruling will increase, not decrease.

[anthonyca]

Federal drug laws are still Unconstitutional.

And the court was wrong in this ruling. I don't agree with them and I don't smoke pot, but I can see that they will increase these laws and rulings.

[CHS]

While federal law makes Marijuana a Schedule 1 narcotic (meaning no legitimate medical use)

Which makes no sense, because the Federal government HAS recognized that marijuana does in fact have legitimate medical use:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassionate_Investigational_New_Drug_program

One guy, Irv Rosenfeld, gets mailed to him THREE HUNDRED joints a month (or every three weeks, I think). That's 11 ounces of pot. The pot is grown at the University of Mississippi and delivered to his door in a big tin can.

[Scott Connors]

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

If someone has an underlying psychiatric condition, for example schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, then marijuana can have highly idiosyncratic consequences, including violence. I've seen it happen. There are studies that suggest it can also activate a latent predisposition.

[Crom]

Check this out

Interesting comments. Look at what the court wrote at the end of the opinion which addressed some of the questions/comments in this thread:

Finally, unlike those who have been convicted of a felony or committed to a mental institution and so face a lifetime ban, We have observed before that there is no constitutional problem with separating guns and drugs. See Jackson,current drug users from possessing a firearm, and "[i]Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563, 570 (1977); see also United States v. Jackson, 480 F.3d 1014, 1021 (9th Cir. 2007). Every circuit to have considered the question has demanded that the habitual abuse be contemporaneous with the gun possession. See Patterson, 431 F.3d at 839; United States v. Augustin, 376 F.3d 135, 139 (3d Cir. 2004); United States v. Turnbull, 349 F.3d 558, 561 (8th Cir. 2003), vacated on other grounds, 543 U.S. 1099 (2005) (finding Booker error), reinstated, 414 F.3d 942 (8th Cir. 2005); United States v. Jackson, 280 F.3d 403, 406 (4th Cir. 2002); United States v. Purdy, 264 F.3d 809, 812-13 (9th Cir. 2001). Thus the gun ban extends only so long as Yancey abuses drugs. In that way, Yancey himself controls his right to possess a gun; the Second Amendment, however, does not require Congress to allow him to simultaneously choose both gun possession and drug abuse.


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.

[bwiese]

Interesting comments. Look at what the court wrote at the end of the opinion which addressed some of the questions/comments in this thread:

Finally, unlike those who have been convicted of a felony or committed to a mental institution and so face a lifetime ban,

....Thus the gun ban extends only so long as Yancey abuses drugs. In that way, Yancey himself controls his right to possess a gun; the Second Amendment, however, does not require Congress to allow him to simultaneously choose both gun possession and drug abuse.

Yup. And this won't ever (nor should it - for political reasons) rise to a pure gun case.

Yancey made a conscious choice to lose his RKBA rights. Fed law is reasonably clear on this, and he probably was regularly self-medicating during periods if/when he was signing oaths on 4473s.

[Connor P Price]

What is it with pro pot people and denial? The Feds just spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and possibly millions prosecuting this dude. But for some reason they won't do it anymore?

Local cops may not have something to charge a pot head with, but they will kick it up to the Feds more after its legal in Cali.

I am for a form of legalized drugs and no drug war, but I can see what really happens. The government hates us having guns. These "in the government's interest" laws and ruling will increase, not decrease.

First off, pro pot people? You were quoting my post but I'll just go ahead and assume you weren't referring to me with that comment.

Local cops in cities and municipalities all over the country ignore violation of federal laws when they aren't in violation of the laws that their particular city chooses to enforce. Case it point, police officers in Los Angeles interact with known illegal immigrants on a daily basis, however they don't "kick it up to the Feds" as you say.

If marijuana is legalized, I personally see where this could create a situation in which we could create some actual "common sense gun laws." Prohibition of possessing or using guns while under the influence of marijuana for example seems like a decent idea. Although, who knows, that would probably lead to some innocent guy getting arrested for smoking a joint in his backyard after work while his guns are locked up in a safe in the garage.

I'll just go ahead and stick to avoiding drugs altogether, smoking pot hardly seems worth losing ones gun rights over.

[dustoff31]

[QUOTE=Connor P Price;4918941]Lets say that generalized legalization does end up going through. Somebody is found to have some weed and a gun, seemingly violating the federal ban on habitual drug users owning firearms. In this situation, no other laws are broken, state or federal. Do you guys think that local law enforcement would be doing anything about it? Or would they not bother since they are beholden to the state rather than the fed gov?[/QUOTE]

Yes, I do think they will be doing something about it for two reasons:

1. Given the manner in which many agencies in CA deal with normal people with guns, especially when carrying/using them, I can't even imagine them ignoring a druggie with a gun.

2. State and local police agencies get a LOT of money from the feds for drug interdiction/enforcement, as well as other fed grants and assistance. They aren't going to give that up easily. They are more beholden to the feds than you might think.

[CHS]

I think a lot of people need to realize that there is a huge difference between being "pro pot" and OMGSHOOTINGGUNSWHILESMOKINGWEEDANDHIGH.

NO ONE is advocating shooting while under the influence (whether it be pot, alcohol, meth, heroine, cocaine, etc).

Unfortunately, as soon as pot legalization comes up people seem to assume that everyone's going to start shooting while high.

I love a quality beer and a good glass of wine (like the one I'm drinking RIGHT NOW), but I would never think to shoot under the influence. Why? Personal responsibility, that's why.

[Hunt]

Hahaha, Pot heads and violent crime.

Now THATS comedy gold.

well one can't expect any rational or intelligent reasoning from either CA legislature or our judiciary. As I have previously posted it's all about asset forfieture damned the lives prohibition destroys. guess what? it's just a matter of time and the Liberty movement will prevail.
so we have a gun in the room (Kops, law and order Statist)

2. State and local police agencies get a LOT of money from the feds for drug interdiction/enforcement, as well as other fed grants and assistance. They aren't going to give that up easily. They are more beholden to the feds than you might think.

it's all about the money, asset forfieture, [prosecutors become drug dealers by proxy], grants, pensions and purchasing votes, like the poet said, "the center cannot hold" this corrupt, violent system is doomed to failure (80% of CA debt to State employee salaries!!) Like LE always say on this forum, "well they shouldn't have violated the regulation otherwise they wouldn't be dead, beaten, caged or fined" Well guess what, the Statist shouldn't have caged non violent people for just living, criminally fined peaceful non violent people, stolen our cars for DMV screw ups, overtaxed us, destroyed our businesses with crony regulations and lied to us so what's the big deal? simply a matter of time and the Liberty movement will have critical mass and bye bye Statist fallen by their own corruption.

[NightOwl]

Yup. And this won't ever (nor should it - for political reasons) rise to a pure gun case.

Yancey made a conscious choice to lose his RKBA rights. Fed law is reasonably clear on this, and he probably was regularly self-medicating during periods if/when he was signing oaths on 4473s.

I think you're missing the point, that this is another chip from everyones gun rights. By attacking him, rather than rallying to his defense, it's counterproductive to the gun rights cause.

ANY reason to strip someone of their firearms rights makes freedom a little less free.