No. Prosecutors would have to prove at trial that he was an unlawful drug user. It's an element of the crime.Originally Posted by alamo5000
No. Prosecutors would have to prove at trial that he was an unlawful drug user. It's an element of the crime.
Exactly. The defendant hadn’t been convicted of being a drug user in possession of a firearm. He had only been indicted, which we all know isn’t a very high bar to reach. If the case had been allowed to move forward, proving to a jury that the defendant was a drug user would have been required to obtain a conviction.
I ended up reading the entire decision last night during a bout of insomnia. The judge may have specifically mentioned marijuana repeatedly because that was the actual drug in question for this case, but the way he worded his reasoning, makes me think the point was to completely invalidate 922(g)(3). Marijuana being legal in Oklahoma at the state level was only mentioned once or twice. The vast majority of the opinion referred to there never having been a historical tradition of depriving people who engaged in felonious activity but hadn’t been convicted of a felony yet of their constitutional rights.
ETA: a good portion of the decision discussed a historical tradition of depriving people of the right to bear arms if they could be shown to be a danger to the community and public due to their past actions, generally through convictions for violent crimes. The judge discussed how the first laws prohibiting violent felons from possessing firearms at the federal level were passed in the early 1900s and it wasn’t until around the mid 1900s that the law was changed to prohibit anyone convicted of any felony from possessing firearms. I’m assuming the United States will argue in their appeal that unlawful drug users are a danger to the community even though they may not have been convicted of violent crimes. This decision might be another step towards amending 922(g)(1) to only prohibit those with violent felony convictions from possessing firearms.
Last edited by WobblyPossum; 02-06-2023 at 10:31 AM.
Don't drink, don't smoke, what do you do?
- Adam Ant
Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits - Mark Twain
Tact is the knack of making a point without making an enemy / Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
The meme thread would only have memes?
Are you positive it’s that way in every state? I really am asking: I grew up being told that everyone in the car gets included in the possession. WA is an open container state, btw. Reachable from the front seat, etc., and cannabis falls under that law.
”But in the end all of these ideas just manufacture new criminals when the problem isn't a lack of criminals.” -JRB
Two completely different scenarios.
The example cited was cousin has MJ in his pocket - on their person = criminal liability for them only.
Your example would be if it was loose in the car somewhere and no one claims it. In that instance either everyone is going to jail or whomever is within arms reach of where it was found. The latter is common practice in many places.
If the rulings main focus is to determine if a citizen can merely own and possess firearms or not as a marijuana user I think the answer is unquestionably yes. I have zero interest in MJ but if the law applies to weed users the same as it does to alcohol users I have no problem with this.
Taking this further, possession or past consumption does not equal intoxication or being stoned in a carry or self defense shooting scenario which is were my mind goes when thinking about this issue. If impaired in a self defense shooting situation all kinds of very bad things are going to happen to you regardless of the drug of choice. In my state just getting caught while otherwise legally carrying while drinking or "X" will get you in a twist. With great freedoms come great responsibilities.
Reply With Quote