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

[NightOwl]

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

I read it, and found it to be the same old absurd anti rhetoric that we've been getting for years. Drug users begin losing constitutional rights, RKBA, serving the governmental interest of preventing violent crimes. The judge goes on to talk at length about habitual drug users and how they should lose their RKBA. There are many habitual drug users who take prescription drugs for whatever reason, who take those drugs legally and in a proscribed manner. Perhaps they should lose their RKBA too, right? Lifetime pain prescription due to injury = no longer allowed to own guns, perhaps? Not yet, but the groundwork is right there. Try the 10th paragraph where the line of "abuser" and "user" blurs.

I refer you back to post #32 in this thread, where I briefly touch on the number of gun owners and drug users in the country. There IS a lot of overlap, and what's more, that's a lot of people who could lose RKBA, like...roughly 1/3 of all americans? Yet you don't think this is an issue where we need to step up and defend our rights? How can you think that disarming 1/3 of the country is constitutional? Are 1/3 of Americans violent criminals? No? Then I find that this does NOT serve a narrowly tailored governmental interest, not even close. I seriously doubt it is substantially related to a compelling governmental interest either, and some of the facts the judge relies on are dubious at best.

I'm 100% fine with a drug user defending himself with a gun.

He just has to take responsibility for his crimes if he is arested.

Asking gun rights groups to fight against this type of criminal case is dumb.

We avoid being defendants as much as possible, we want to be plaintiffs!

Nowhere in that case does it state that he was high at the time he was found in possession of the gun. Nor does it say that he used the gun unlawfully, other than possessing it. Nobody is saying he should get a free pass for committing crimes with his firearm. I am saying that he should be allowed to have a firearm. He had a gun. He wasn't waving it, shooting it, or anything else, he just had it. So how can the drug user defend himself with a gun he's otherwise prohibited (without due process) from possessing? Oh, someone is shooting at me, time to go find a gun to defend myself with? Fine, don't defend this case, support being a plaintiff in a civil action that will wipe this case off the books, imo.

As soon as we start labeling certain crimes as ok to restrict self defense, where does it stop?

This makes sense.

[dustoff31]

Fine, don't defend this case,

Thanks, I won't defend it. Like the druggies always say, if what they do doesn't effect me, why is it any of my business? It isn't.

[CAL.BAR]

To get back to the legal point, this holding illustrates how future 2A based lawsuits may/will fail. (i.e. 10 rds mag, AW's etc.) In the opinion of this (and most other - including Heller ) courts, the States do still have the right to enact REASONABLE restrictions on firearms and their possession. Habitual drugs users = the state has a compelling interest to keep guns from them. The next argument is that the state has a compelling interest to keep the population safe from dangerous weapons (hi cap mags, AW's etc.) Just as this Plaintiff failed to show daily MJ use didn't necessarily make him more dangerous than you are me, so too will the next plaintiff have a tough time showing the court that 20 rd mags aren't more dangerous than 10 rd mags(more bullets = more danger in the minds of the court) or that folding stocks, flash suppressors and drop mags aren't more dangerous than bolt action for example. (tough to stick a full length hunting rifle in your trench coat and hit the local school or church)

In other words, just b/c Heller says you can have a pistol in your bedroom, it doesn't harken the end of AW and high cap laws (especially in KA)
No one said this was going to be easy . . . or even possible

[SteveH]

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.

"Medical marijuana" is not prescribed by doctors. There are less than 50 people in the entire country with marijuana prescriptions. do not confuse a doctors recommendation, even written, with a prescrition. a written doctor recommendation for marijuana is no more a prescrition than an OLL bullet button build is an assault weapon.

[Scott Connors]

The same can be said for catching your wife in the sack with the pool boy. But people married to bimbos are not prohibited.

False analogy: one is behaviorial (learned), the other genetic and/or pharmacological. However, I'll concede that both examples (marrying the round-heeled wench and rockin' da ganja [or using anything to the point of intoxication for that matter, regardless of legality) are indicative of poor decision making, which is certainly not desirable in someone exercising the RKBA.

[Crom]

I read it, ...

Great. I am sorry I asserted that you had not. Thanks for debating the issues in the case...

Okay. No one is advocating taking away rights from individuals who take regularly Dr. prescribed medicines. This case does not bear on that. It bears on, illegal habitual use, AND drug abuse.

The court said:

Keeping guns away from habitual drug abusers is analogous to disarming felons. ...Moreover, habitual drug abusers, like the mentally ill, are more likely to have difficulty exercising self-control, making it dangerous for them to possess deadly fire-arms.

see also United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203, 226 n.21 (5th Cir. 2001) (noting that "lunatics" and "those of unsound mind" were historically prohibited from firearm possession). Extending the ban to those who regularly abuse drugs makes particular sense because the Court has noted the similarity between the two groups. A few years before Congress barred the mentally ill and habitual drug abusers from possessing guns, the Court noted that drug addiction is an illness not unlike other mental illnesses, and that it could in some cases be contracted innocently or inadvertently.

I refer you back to post #32 in this thread, where I briefly touch on the number of gun owners and drug users in the country. There IS a lot of overlap, and what's more, that's a lot of people who could lose RKBA, like...roughly 1/3 of all americans? Yet you don't think this is an issue where we need to step up and defend our rights? How can you think that disarming 1/3 of the country is constitutional? Are 1/3 of Americans violent criminals? No? Then I find that this does NOT serve a narrowly tailored governmental interest, not even close. I seriously doubt it is substantially related to a compelling governmental interest either, and some of the facts the judge relies on are dubious at best.

Regarding your post #32, nobody is asserting that a one-time drug use constitutes the loss of the right. That's not the issue in this case. This case is about: "an individual who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance."

For me it all boils down to the fact that if someone has a drug problem they should seek help and rehabilitation because it's probably ruining their life and the lives of their family. In post #48 I gave an example of a meth addict. Under no circumstances would I ever think that a practicing meth addict has a right to his guns. Meth addicts are so impaired at times that they are truly (temporarily) insane. Once they recover and are no longer addicted, then they are okay to possess guns. The court even said that:

an unlawful drug user like Yancey could regain his right to possess a firearm simply by ending his drug abuse....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.

Nowhere in that case does it state that he was high at the time he was found in possession of the gun. Nor does it say that he used the gun unlawfully, other than possessing it. Nobody is saying he should get a free pass for committing crimes with his firearm. I am saying that he should be allowed to have a firearm. He had a gun. He wasn't waving it, shooting it, or anything else, he just had it.

I posted it before and I'll post it again. Yancey screwed himself royally when he spoke to the police.

Police officers executed an arrest warrant for Yancey in June 2008. Yancey, who was 18 at the time, was carrying a loaded pistol and 0.7 grams of marijuana. He confessed that he had been smoking marijuana daily since age 16. Arrests for possession of marijuana in 2006 and again in 2008 corroborate this admission.

Had he not said that it's conceivable this case may have not came about.

[wash]

I would probably use marijuana occasionally if it were legal (state and federal).

Posession of marijuana is illegal, it's a federal crime and there are enhancements for posession of firearms.

If you want to smoke dope, I've got no problems with that. I will vote for prop 19. If you get in trouble, call NORML.

We don't need your issues confused with our issues.

If you get caught with guns and dope, I'll say you should have picked one!

If you're so concerned with protecting yourself with a gun, give up the dope.

If you're all about dope, get rid of your guns.

It's a pretty simple decision.

I chose guns and no, you can't have both and expect anyone to pick up the pieces when you get busted.

[Alaric]

The bottom line for me is that I'd be much more comfortable with a gun-toting pot smoker around than with a gun-toting drunk. So why is gun ownership allowed for drinkers but not for MJ smokers?

The cultural bias is obvious here, and whether you like it or not, some people will work to change that.

[Crom]

The bottom line for me is that I'd be much more comfortable with a gun-toting pot smoker around than with a gun-toting drunk. So why is gun ownership allowed for drinkers but not for MJ smokers?

The cultural bias is obvious here, and whether you like it or not, some people will work to change that.

I completely agree that a user of MJ is much safer than a drunk with a gun. I did a cursory search on why MJ is illegal. I don't know the answer to your question but it did make me think and according to one source it said that of all states it was California that was the first to make a prohibition of MJ in the year 1913. After Cali, Wyoming (1915), Texas (1919), Iowa (1923), Nevada (1923), Oregon (1923), Washington (1923), Arkansas (1923), and Nebraska (1927) followed.

How fitting that if prop 19 passes, California will be first to undo the prohibition.

[jl123]

I completely agree that a user of MJ is much safer than a drunk with a gun. I did a cursory search on why MJ is illegal. I don't know the answer to your question but it did make me think and according to one source it said that of all states it was California that was the first to make a prohibition of MJ in the year 1913. After Cali, Wyoming (1915), Texas (1919), Iowa (1923), Nevada (1923), Oregon (1923), Washington (1923), Arkansas (1923), and Nebraska (1927) followed.

How fitting that if prop 19 passes, California will be first to undo the prohibition.

Try doing searches with DuPont and Hearst along with marijuana.

[Alaric]

I completely agree that a user of MJ is much safer than a drunk with a gun. I did a cursory search on why MJ is illegal. I don't know the answer to your question but it did make me think and according to one source it said that of all states it was California that was the first to make a prohibition of MJ in the year 1913. After Cali, Wyoming (1915), Texas (1919), Iowa (1923), Nevada (1923), Oregon (1923), Washington (1923), Arkansas (1923), and Nebraska (1927) followed.

How fitting that if prop 19 passes, California will be first to undo the prohibition.

The history of marijuana prohibition evolved on basically 3 fronts:

1. Marijuana was associated with mexicans and blacks. It was made illegal in order to serve as a way to persecute and penalize these people by a racist white majority at the time.

2. Marijuana was associated with hemp, a natural fiber and oil widely used in textiles, rope, veg oil, etc. Around this time DuPont was coming out with their new nylon products. They wanted hemp banned to increase their potential market share.

3. Marijuana was used in made-up scare stories to sell Hearst newspapers and to increase funding for law enforcement agencies. It was part of a larger trend toward building a police state based on fear and mistrust of those who can be marginalized and disempowered. We've seen it again and again in the US. From marijuana laws, to gun control laws, to Jim Crow laws, the majority persecutes the minority with laws that attack their rights at the core.

There's a fairly detailed overview of the history of marijuana prohibition here: http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/...juana-illegal/

[Meplat]

I think I just heard a big tent collapse.

When I say pick one, it's pretty simple.

If you really like RKBA, be a gun owner or an activist and even a drug activist but don't do drugs.

If you really like drugs, be a drug user or an activist and even a gun activist but don't own guns.

Once your drug of choice is legal at state and federal levels, then you can start fighting for both.

Just don't hang your currently illegal activity around the neck of our explicitly constitutionally protected legal activity.

If you are going to break federal laws, we don't need you, we don't want you, go away.

[Meplat]

I do not purposely go shooting or hunting after drinking any amount. However if i am sitting on my sofa enjoying a glass of wine and you kick in my front door I will not ask you to wait until I finnish metabolizing the alcohol.

I would hope that this would be the attitude of EVERYONE on this forum. Intoxicants and weapons do not mix well. ANY intoxicant.

[Meplat]

Let me start by saying that I do not use pot. I never have. But a long time ago in a galaxy far away I decided it would be fun to see how the world of medical MJ really worked. I also thought having a prescription might help if someone decided to drop a bag on me.

A friend took me to a clinic in Berkeley. I saw an honest to gosh CA licensed MD. I told him I had back pain (which I did) and I would prefer an herbal remedy as opposed to synthetic opiates. I lied on that one, I I love opiates. If it were as easy to get a script for morphine as it is for MJ I would probably be in big trouble. Luckily it's not.

I got a proscription for MJ. It was written on a regular prescription pad and looks just like the ones I have for blood pressure meds. I still have it, never used it. The process was laughably easy. But then going to the doc and getting a script for Vicodine or soma is just as easy if you think about it.

I think it's a legal prescription and it would take more than one persons word to convince me otherwise.

"Medical marijuana" is not prescribed by doctors. There are less than 50 people in the entire country with marijuana prescriptions. do not confuse a doctors recommendation, even written, with a prescrition. a written doctor recommendation for marijuana is no more a prescrition than an OLL bullet button build is an assault weapon.

[Meplat]

Two points:

1. I wish I was as sure of my opinions regarding nature v nurture as you.

2. It seems you would deny anyone who ever used any substance, legal or not, to the point of intoxication (whoever decides that?), access to arms at any time. Is that your position?

False analogy: one is behaviorial (learned), the other genetic and/or pharmacological. However, I'll concede that both examples (marrying the round-heeled wench and rockin' da ganja [or using anything to the point of intoxication for that matter, regardless of legality) are indicative of poor decision making, which is certainly not desirable in someone exercising the RKBA.