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

[Crom]

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.

I don't think so. I agree with what Bill wrote especially when he quoted the opinion and narrowed down the quote. I think it was very apropos.

Here it is again:

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.

The moral here is, don't' abuse illegal drugs and you retain your full 2A rights.

[jl123]

I don't think so. I agree with what Bill wrote especially when he quoted the opinion and narrowed down the quote. I think it was very apropos.

Here it is again:

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.

The moral here is, don't' abuse illegal drugs and you retain your full 2A rights.

The moral here is, prohibition is unconstitutional.

[Crom]

The moral here is, prohibition is unconstitutional.

You seem to have an absolutist view of things. Let me give you an extreme example.

Do you really think that the meth addict has a right to his guns? How about when he has been awake for 4 days straight and has auditory and visual hallucinations? He is locked in his garage, tapped up the seams on the doors, separating the nuts and bolts. He knows the cops are out there. Sweating profusely growing increasingly more paranoid each hour.

No. Guns and drugs do not mix.

It would be lunacy to think that someone in that mental state is not a danger to himself and others.

[NightOwl]

The moral here is, don't' abuse illegal drugs and you retain your full 2A rights.

No, the moral here is that it's another crack in our 2nd amendment rights. Just like DV, taking another piece away from it applying it to more people, giving yet another excuse for an otherwise reasonable person to lose their firearm rights...even if you lose them for a moment, he can't get his back (easily), like that judge indicates.

Once he's tagged for that felony, now he needs to try to get it expunged/pardoned, and that's a hell of a series of hoops to jump through. Every piece counts, and the road to no viable 2A is paved with good intentions. How many little pieces will it take to add up to a significant number of americans with their rights...wait for it...infringed. C'mon, you knew that one was coming.

We didn't get in the situation today in a single step, it was a series of steps that added up to our rights being in the craphole they're in. And you're condoning that.

[Alaric]

Pick one issue.

You pick one right that you support. Which one you want? The second? How about an unenumerated right? The right to breath? The right to eat what you want? How about the right to alcohol, do you like to drink?

No matter, it's not a question of what you like since the right for adults to engage in drug use that doesn't affect others is an unenumerated right. Just because the feds haven't been FORCED to accept that FACT yet, as they'll eventually be, is not the concern of freedom loving people.

This isn't about what federal law, currently and erroneously states. This is as much a civil rights issue as gun rights are. While the intersection of the two issues may inconvenience some activists on either side, who fail to see their own hypocrisy on the issue... that's not something I lose any sleep over. Suffice it to say, I respect the right of the right people to be wrong on this.

[Alaric]

By the way, according to a recent survey, 42% of Americans have used marijuana. Are we comfortable with saying that 42% of Americans should be barred from owing guns? Tell me again what the definition of an "unlawful user of marijuana" is, according to federal law?

[anthonyca]

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.

I apologize if it seemed like I was insulting you. You are correct that LA and many other cities do not report illegal immigrants to the Feds. Those same cities also hate guns and there is evidence of them getting the Feds involved to put people away for longer than state law allows.

I hate drugs and what they can do to people, but I hate us loosing freedoms even more due to this asinine drug war. LA, NY, SF and many others are run by people who HATE fredom and guns. They may even be pro drugs,( not for fredom but to have a supply of dependents) however there is evidence of them getting the Feds involved to punish gun owners. That is the point I was trying to make. The Feds also aren't going to just give up power just because some state passes a law to make a substance legal, even though the constitution says they should.

[Meplat]

I doubt any cause and effect there. I don't use the stuff. Never have. But my experience tells me It does not make people violent, just the opposite.

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

[Connor P Price]

By the way, according to a recent survey, 42% of Americans have used marijuana. Are we comfortable with saying that 42% of Americans should be barred from owing guns? Tell me again what the definition of an "unlawful user of marijuana" is, according to federal law?

Current and Habitual users of drugs are barred from gun ownership according to federal law. 42% of Americans who have smoked marijuana includes many that experimented in their high school or college days and no longer use any drugs. According to federal law these people are no longer barred from gun ownership.

While I agree that prohibition of Marijuana is wrong and causes vastly more harm than any good it claims to ever have done. Its still against the law, and while we are fighting on a state and national level (and winning) for our second amendment rights it would be wise to avoid this type of trouble. It does nobody any good and only serves to hurt our cause.

Our rights have been encroached upon slowly and incrementally. While it may be slow moving, we have to regain them the same way. It was said to "pick on issue" which is a good idea. After your done with that one, go for the next one. Never should 2A issues and taking down prohibition of marijuana be taken on side by side. They're separate issues, and we'd do well not to mix them in the courts or in usage in every day life.

[Crom]

No, the moral here is that it's another crack in our 2nd amendment rights. Just like DV, taking another piece away from it applying it to more people, giving yet another excuse for an otherwise reasonable person to lose their firearm rights...even if you lose them for a moment, he can't get his back (easily), like that judge indicates.

Once he's tagged for that felony, now he needs to try to get it expunged/pardoned, and that's a hell of a series of hoops to jump through. Every piece counts, and the road to no viable 2A is paved with good intentions. How many little pieces will it take to add up to a significant number of americans with their rights...wait for it...infringed. C'mon, you knew that one was coming.

We didn't get in the situation today in a single step, it was a series of steps that added up to our rights being in the craphole they're in. And you're condoning that.

Read the case hereStart on the 5th paragraph down that begins with

[Connor P Price]

I apologize if it seemed like I was insulting you. You are correct that LA and many other cities do not report illegal immigrants to the Feds. Those same cities also hate guns and there is evidence of them getting the Feds involved to put people away for longer than state law allows.

I hate drugs and what they can do to people, but I hate us loosing freedoms even more due to this asinine drug war. LA, NY, SF and many others are run by people who HATE fredom and guns. They may even be pro drugs,( not for fredom but to have a supply of dependents) however there is evidence of them getting the Feds involved to punish gun owners. That is the point I was trying to make. The Feds also aren't going to just give up power just because some state passes a law to make a substance legal, even though the constitution says they should.

No apology needed since its clear you didn't mean to insult me. We can't read tones to well over an internet forum so its easy to get lost with that sort of thing.

Point well taken on the issue of escalating issues to a federal level. I hope we don't end up going down that road, but i suppose i can see the way we could.

[Alaric]

Current and Habitual users of drugs are barred from gun ownership according to federal law. 42% of Americans who have smoked marijuana includes many that experimented in their high school or college days and no longer use any drugs. According to federal law these people are no longer barred from gun ownership.

Can you point out where this definition is encoded in federal law? What is the exact statute of limitations on "current use", per federal law? I've asked this question before, done my own research, and always come up empty. If this isn't a regulation the screams out for challenge as "arbitrary", I don't know what does.

While I agree that prohibition of Marijuana is wrong and causes vastly more harm than any good it claims to ever have done. Its still against the law, and while we are fighting on a state and national level (and winning) for our second amendment rights it would be wise to avoid this type of trouble. It does nobody any good and only serves to hurt our cause.

Our rights have been encroached upon slowly and incrementally. While it may be slow moving, we have to regain them the same way. It was said to "pick on issue" which is a good idea. After your done with that one, go for the next one. Never should 2A issues and taking down prohibition of marijuana be taken on side by side. They're separate issues, and we'd do well not to mix them in the courts or in usage in every day life.

Do you really think any of these battles (for gun rights or marijuana law reform) will be concluded within our lifetimes? I don't. I would doubt they'll be concluded even within our grandkids' lifetimes. And they do intersect. As I've pointed out, Americans love to experiment, more than any other nations' inhabitants, and we love our guns. Those things should not be mutually exclusive. No, bong rips and range trips don't mix. But there shouldn't be any problem with people responsibly using both separately. The dividing line between freedom and the law isn't what others arbitrarily fear, it's when someone else's rights have been infringed upon.

[Meplat]

There are as many opinions about it among cops as among CalGunners. It depends on which LEOs you draw. Good luck.

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?

[Connor P Price]

Can you point out where this definition is encoded in federal law? What is the exact statute of limitations on "current use", per federal law? I've asked this question before, done my own research, and always come up empty. If this isn't a regulation the screams out for challenge as "arbitrary", I don't know what does.

This is from the decision in this case. Its clear that once one has ceased the use of illicit drugs they should be able to own firearms. As far as a specific timeframe or statute of limitations I don't believe one exists.
ETA: Just think of how this is expressed on a 4473, Are you a habitual user of illicit narcotics? (or something to that effect.)

Finally, unlike those who have been convicted of a felony or committed to a mental institution and so face a lifetime ban, an unlawful drug user like Yancey could regain his right to possess a firearm simply by ending his drug abuse.

Do you really think any of these battles (for gun rights or marijuana law reform) will be concluded within our lifetimes? I don't. I would doubt they'll be concluded even within our grandkids' lifetimes. And they do intersect. As I've pointed out, Americans love to experiment, more than any other nations' inhabitants, and we love our guns. Those things should not be mutually exclusive. No, bong rips and range trips don't mix. But there shouldn't be any problem with people responsibly using both separately. The dividing line between freedom and the law isn't what others arbitrarily fear, it's when someone else's rights have been infringed upon.

Will the overall war be decided in our lifetime? No. But I absolutely believe we'll see battles decided in our lifetimes on both of these issues. In fact we already have, Heller and McDonald were both what I would consider battles decided in our favor. Medicinal Marijuana was a victory for that crowd. I imagine its entirely possible and even quite probable that we'll see more victories on both these fronts.

[edwardm]

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

That kind of doesn't make sense. 922(g)(3) violations are felonies, as stated elsewhere in the opinion. No way on this blue planet he can "regain his right to possess" by simply not doing drugs after a 922(g)(3) conviction.

He could avoid the crime in the first place by not abusing the drug of choice, but once done, it's a committed offense. In the very least, the ice is thin underfoot until the statute of limitations runs on the offense(s) in question.

What this ultimately makes me question is the logic the court engaged in to decide on intermediate scrutiny on the basis of "well it's not a felony issue, so we're not going to apply strict scrutiny." Sounds like they decided to cast about for any way to avoid strict scrutiny application in the first place, regardless of the outcome. The scrutiny level itself sets a precedent, regardless of whether the perp loses on the facts or not.

Hrmph. I realize I'm under-analyzing the difference between "committed a felony" vs. "convicted of a felony", but I don't know that my failure to do so affects the observation that the court engaged in a silly handwaving exercise to avoid SS.