24hourcampfire.com
24hourcampfire.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 11,112
D
denton Offline OP
Campfire Outfitter
OP Offline
Campfire Outfitter
D
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 11,112
In a bit of a surprising ruling, the US District Court in Utah, a federal law against being an unlawful user of, or addicted to a controlled substance was held to be unconstitutional.

The legal reason was that the law was vague. It doesn't specify how long ago, or how frequently the substance was used. So a single use 10 years ago might be disqualifying, or it might not.

So I'm not too happy about illegal drug users being entitled to possess firearms, but it is a 2A win, I guess.

This ruling is only binding in Utah. It will undoubtedly be appealed. It would not be surprising to see this issue reach SCOTUS.


Be not weary in well doing.
BP-B2

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,285
A
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
A
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,285
You can’t make this S hit Up ..
Vague..
There needs to be a Vacancy..

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,282
M
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
M
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,282
Boy, do I view THAT one with mixed feelings!
How long should a one-time transgression be held against a person?
Depends on the crime, I think.
Murder, or pedophilia - forever, in my book.
5 oz of pot, in 1975? I dunno.


I've always been a curmudgeon - now I'm an old curmudgeon.
~Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla~
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,780
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,780
I suppose it all depend is you believe in redemption, or cheap Grace, I suppose....


Sic Semper Tyrannis
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,898
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,898
Originally Posted by denton
In a bit of a surprising ruling, the US District Court in Utah, a federal law against being an unlawful user of, or addicted to a controlled substance was held to be unconstitutional.

The legal reason was that the law was vague. It doesn't specify how long ago, or how frequently the substance was used. So a single use 10 years ago might be disqualifying, or it might not.

So I'm not too happy about illegal drug users being entitled to possess firearms, but it is a 2A win, I guess.

This ruling is only binding in Utah. It will undoubtedly be appealed. It would not be surprising to see this issue reach SCOTUS.

Thanks for posting this as I missed it.


John Burns

I have all the sources.
They can't stop the signal.

IC B2

Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 13,205
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 13,205
Next up, if a felon convicted of a non-violent crime has paid his debt to society he should have his gun rights restored.
Self defense is a basic human right, not a right to be granted by a government.

Last edited by NVhntr; 07/13/22.

Let's Go Brandon! FJB
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,187
P
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
P
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,187
.... shall not be infringed.


prplbkrr = Purple Biker

Can't score goals if all you do is pass.
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,882
4
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
4
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,882
There has been some discussion about the effect of expanding the Second Ammendment to the extent of the things mentioned here and even further to allow the possession of all military weapons, eliminating the gun control act of 1968 and the 1934 NFA law. Basically no infringement on arms possession. There is speculation this might be the catalyst that would lead to a Constitutional Ammendment to place limits on the Second. I know judges are supposed to make decisions of this kind based on the Constitution but it would be impossible not to consider the consequences of those decisions. Place yourself in that judge's position. How would you decide?
In the Utah case it appears the judge is telling them to go back and make the law more definitive. Define the conditions under which someone's constitutional rights can be taken away. I see nothing wrong with that. I would agree.

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 18,450
G
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
G
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 18,450
Originally Posted by prplbkrr
.... shall not be infringed.

Yep. Either you're all in or you're not.

Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 9,677
H
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
H
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 9,677
Was either NFA 1934 or GCA 68 ever voted on by congress and signed into law by a president? If not, they're both unconstitutional. Getting a veto-proof majority of strict-constitutionalist legislators and passing reasonable laws should be a top priority, but the swamp will never allow that to happen!


Ignorance can be fixed. Stupid is forever!
IC B3

Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,882
4
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
4
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,882
Originally Posted by Hotrod_Lincoln
Was either NFA 1934 or GCA 68 ever voted on by congress and signed into law by a president? If not, they're both unconstitutional. Getting a veto-proof majority of strict-constitutionalist legislators and passing reasonable laws should be a top priority, but the swamp will never allow that to happen!

I am thinking they were but I could be mistaken and don't know the details. I do know the constitutionality of the NFA 1934 was challenged in court. The plantiff's attorney failed to show at the final hearing and the judge ruled for the government on that basis. Turns out the plantiff's attorney didn't show because he was dead. Turns out he was dead because he had been murdered. Coincidence?
Based on the Supreme Court's recent ruling in the New York case there is speculation both of these laws could be ruled unconstitutional even if they were passed by Congress and signed by the President.

Last edited by 45_100; 07/13/22.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,279
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,279
It is absolutely vague and needs clarification.

Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,338
7
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
7
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,338
Originally Posted by prplbkrr
.... shall not be infringed.
there ya GO, that's the correct answer

Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 17,807
H
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
H
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 17,807
IIRC the 4473 asks if one is a "user" ( that to me would mean current or recent, repeated ).

It doesnt ask if " have you ever used? "

I think the wording specific enough, but obviously anything can be argued and a definitive time frame would/should stop such legal argument.

The wording about " addicted " removes the time frame IMHO, some entity would have to have declared the person as such. So even if they quit using for quite a while, once that label has been affixed, they are screwed w that question.

Same for folks that voluntarily seek mental health.
Once somebody puts something on a form youre screwed.

Some lady wanted a gun but had voluntarily went to some shrink when going through divorce years before. I dunno how much money she spent on lawyer to clean it up.....if it did.

At least she answered the 4473 honestly.

Last edited by hookeye; 07/13/22.
Joined: Feb 2022
Posts: 391
E
Campfire Member
Offline
Campfire Member
E
Joined: Feb 2022
Posts: 391
Originally Posted by hookeye
IIRC the 4473 asks if one is a "user" ( that to me would mean current or recent, repeated ).

It doesnt ask if " have you ever used? "

I think the wording specific enough, but obviously anything can be argued and a definitive time frame would/should stop such legal argument.

The wording about " addicted " removes the time frame IMHO, some entity would have to have declared the person as such. So even if they quit using for quite a while, once that label has been affixed, they are screwed w that question.

Same for folks that voluntarily seek mental health.
Once somebody puts something on a form youre screwed.

Some lady wanted a gun but had voluntarily went to some shrink when going through divorce years before. I dunno how much money she spent on lawyer to clean it up.....if it did.

At least she answered the 4473 honestly.

Pretty sure it says "are you, or have you ever been, a user of or addicted to" so one puff of shetty weed 30 years ago would be disqualifying.

Joined: Dec 2019
Posts: 16,366
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2019
Posts: 16,366
While I am no fan of junkies combined with lethal items the ruling does do this: It does quite a bit to knock a leg out from under any attempts at red flag laws...

besides junkies kill far more people with vehicles than weapons...your average junkie would fritter any available cash on another hit long before he would amass enough cash for a firearms purchase...besides if the get so desperate that they try to whack a dealer for stash then they are actually helping..


-OMotS



"If memory serves fails me..."
Quote: ( unnamed) "been prtty deep in the cooler todaay "
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 19,158
B
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 19,158
There's no reason at all to bar a pot smoker while a drunk still has his rights. Fudds should be mindful that the goal of the gun controllers is to find reasons to ban as many people as possible. In New York it's down to if you've ever had a misdemeanor DUI. One day it may take nothing more than a traffic ticket.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,279
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,279
Originally Posted by prplbkrr
.... shall not be infringed.

We'd have a lot less prisoners if guns were allowed in prison.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,279
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,279
Originally Posted by ElAhrairah
Pretty sure it says "are you, or have you ever been, a user of or addicted to" so one puff of shetty weed 30 years ago would be disqualifying.

Have you ever bought a goddam gun?

"Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4...ord-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,279
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,279
I hope this case results in this piece being cleared up. I'd like to see pot expressly excluded.

If I traveled from LA to Oregon without any guns, smoked pot while I was there, then returned home with the intention of never smoking pot again, does that make my guns illegal. Does that mean that I can no longer legally buy a gun?

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  RickBin 

Link Copied to Clipboard
YB23

Who's Online Now
452 members (160user, 1Longbow, 300jimmy, 10ring1, 1lesfox, 257 mag, 49 invisible), 2,013 guests, and 952 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums81
Topics1,187,595
Posts18,398,110
Members73,815
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023


 







Fish & Game Departments | Solunar Tables | Mission Statement | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | DMCA
Hunting | Fishing | Camping | Backpacking | Reloading | Campfire Forums | Gear Shop
Copyright © 2000-2024 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.3.33 Page Time: 0.142s Queries: 15 (0.004s) Memory: 0.8979 MB (Peak: 1.0515 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2024-03-28 11:55:09 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS