NEW ORLEANS, LA – Federal law states that any individual that is “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” is prohibited from possessing a firearm. That ban not only applies when that individual is intoxicated or high, but also when they are sober.
The 5th Circuit recently ruled the law to be unconstitutional.
In U.S. v. Daniels, the federal appellate court ruled that Patrick Daniels’ conviction for illegal firearms possession simply because he admittedly smoked marijuana several times a month was a violation of his Second Amendment rights, unless it could be proven that he physically possessed it on his person while under the influence of the drugs he was taking.
Judge Jerry Smith wrote in the decision, “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.”
He continued by looking at how the this topic was addressed during the early years of this nation. “The Founders purportedly institutionalized the insane and stripped them of their guns; but they allowed alcoholics to possess firearms while sober," Judge Smith said.
"We must ask, in Bruen-style analogical reasoning, which is Daniels more like: a categorically ‘insane’ person? Or a repeat alcohol user? Given his periodic marihuana usage, Daniels is firmly in the latter camp. If, and when, Daniels uses marihuana, he may be compared to a mentally ill individual whom the Founders would have disarmed. But while sober, he is like the repeat alcohol user in between periods of drunkenness.”
The law, Title 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), does not refer to any specific examples of drugs, but simply says “any controlled substance.”
While the judge used alcohol in his analogy, it is not listed as such in the Controlled Substances Act.
The Department of Justice has a twenty-page document that lists prescription and non-prescription drugs that are considered controlled substances.
Among the many drugs identified on that list is cocaine. The 5th Circuit’s ruling could have a major impact on a current case making headlines, the illegal firearms possession charges against Hunter Biden.
While that case stems more from Hunter allegedly lying on a federal form, his drug use has equally been at the center of the argument.
“Even though Hunter Biden’s situation is readily distinguishable from that of Patrick Daniels, it’s possible the Justice Department could rationalize that the 5th Circuit’s ruling supports its exercise of discretion to give Biden deferred-prosecution treatment (as currently proposed, two years of probationary conditions followed by dismissal if the conditions are met) in a plea agreement,” former Assistant US Attorney Andrew McCarthy told Fox News, as reported by the website Liberty Nation.
James Fite, in writing the piece on Liberty Nation, pointed out that this is not the first case the 5th Circuit ruled on in 2023 regarding violations of the Second Amendment.
In U.S. v. Rahimi, the court struck down a law that stripped those rights away from alleged domestic abusers under active restraining orders. Without prosecution and conviction of a crime, the ruling essentially overturns the law and limits the government’s ability to remove guns in that instance.
That same appeals court also tok on the ATF’s new definitions of firearm as well as their pistol brace rule. The court ruled that the ATF is not a legislative body capable of making new laws or rewriting the existing ones.
The 5th Circuit recently ruled the law to be unconstitutional.
In U.S. v. Daniels, the federal appellate court ruled that Patrick Daniels’ conviction for illegal firearms possession simply because he admittedly smoked marijuana several times a month was a violation of his Second Amendment rights, unless it could be proven that he physically possessed it on his person while under the influence of the drugs he was taking.
Judge Jerry Smith wrote in the decision, “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.”
He continued by looking at how the this topic was addressed during the early years of this nation. “The Founders purportedly institutionalized the insane and stripped them of their guns; but they allowed alcoholics to possess firearms while sober," Judge Smith said.
"We must ask, in Bruen-style analogical reasoning, which is Daniels more like: a categorically ‘insane’ person? Or a repeat alcohol user? Given his periodic marihuana usage, Daniels is firmly in the latter camp. If, and when, Daniels uses marihuana, he may be compared to a mentally ill individual whom the Founders would have disarmed. But while sober, he is like the repeat alcohol user in between periods of drunkenness.”
The law, Title 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), does not refer to any specific examples of drugs, but simply says “any controlled substance.”
While the judge used alcohol in his analogy, it is not listed as such in the Controlled Substances Act.
The Department of Justice has a twenty-page document that lists prescription and non-prescription drugs that are considered controlled substances.
Among the many drugs identified on that list is cocaine. The 5th Circuit’s ruling could have a major impact on a current case making headlines, the illegal firearms possession charges against Hunter Biden.
While that case stems more from Hunter allegedly lying on a federal form, his drug use has equally been at the center of the argument.
“Even though Hunter Biden’s situation is readily distinguishable from that of Patrick Daniels, it’s possible the Justice Department could rationalize that the 5th Circuit’s ruling supports its exercise of discretion to give Biden deferred-prosecution treatment (as currently proposed, two years of probationary conditions followed by dismissal if the conditions are met) in a plea agreement,” former Assistant US Attorney Andrew McCarthy told Fox News, as reported by the website Liberty Nation.
James Fite, in writing the piece on Liberty Nation, pointed out that this is not the first case the 5th Circuit ruled on in 2023 regarding violations of the Second Amendment.
In U.S. v. Rahimi, the court struck down a law that stripped those rights away from alleged domestic abusers under active restraining orders. Without prosecution and conviction of a crime, the ruling essentially overturns the law and limits the government’s ability to remove guns in that instance.
That same appeals court also tok on the ATF’s new definitions of firearm as well as their pistol brace rule. The court ruled that the ATF is not a legislative body capable of making new laws or rewriting the existing ones.
For corrections or revisions, click here.
The opinions reflected in this article are not necessarily the opinions of LET
Comments