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.

You can’t make this S hit Up ..
Vague..
There needs to be a Vacancy..

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 suppose it all depend is you believe in redemption, or cheap Grace, I suppose....

Thanks for posting this as I missed it.

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.

.... shall not be infringed.

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.

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

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.

It is absolutely vague and needs clarification.

there ya GO, that's the correct answer

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.

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..

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.

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

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

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?

I'd say no and honestly - I think the question is there so if they were to bust you as a drug addict later and found out you bought a gun in the past, they can simply stack more charges on you. If you're buying it's like MEPS - you answer the way you know to get what you want. No intelligent person is going to self- identify/answer in a way to fail the form and then be shocked.

"No" just means "new opportunities"

There the $64 question...if the black-and-white verbiage of "shall not be infringed" gets interpreted to mean everything from Ruger Number 1's to M249's, will 3/4's of states be open to a re-write of the 2A? If so, how far would 3/4's be wiling to go? I'm thinking, in typical libtard fashion, they will overreach with any suggested modifications and come up with something that can't get ratified.

Voted on by Congress, and signed into "law" by the President - does NOT make laws Constitutional!
That decision rests on SCOTUS, and they don't always get it right. Liberals want to legislate, and modify the Constitution from the bench.

Hunter Biden didn’t have a problem answering no. Nothing happened to him. So if you smoked some crack the morning you go to buy a firearm you’re good.

I'm thinking that most of the drug users who shouldn't have a gun have other disqualifications as well.

Amy has repeatedly said and written that she thinks the prohibition on firearm ownership for non-violent felons is unconstitutional.

We'll see how the others pile on.

There is already a process for that to happen. Once a convicted felon has successfully completed his sentence, including parole, probation, etc., they have to live a "clean" life with no further criminal convictions for ten years. After the ten years has passed, they can petition the original court to have their Constitutional rights restored. Most petitioners are successful.

Most cons can't stay out of trouble, so they can't file the petition.

Ed

That's controlled by each state, a stolen car 50 years ago can and will prevent gun ownership

Got a link?

https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20220705616

Bruce

No worries there sir. Nobody has ever been prohibited from buying a firearm for being a drug addict.

Again, there's that vagueness. "Most petitioners are successful." as you say. That would likely lead one to believe "some" are not. The question now becomes why they are not when others are successful. Because the original court now has a makeup of judges that don't believe 10 years is long enough? Because the person came to Court in a T shirt and shorts and didn't show proper respect to the Court? Because they are poor and can't show evidence of a job and being an upstanding citizen?

If not successful in their petition, can they petition to a higher Court? All at their expense of course. Unless they're poor.