https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ba...s-unconstitutional-us-judge-rules-2023-02-04/ Besides the obvious headline, this case is important because of what the DOJ offered and the Court rejected as historical analogs allowing gun control. The analogs that the Justice Department relied on to make the case that the ban is consistent—including references to antiquated case law preventing Catholics, loyalists, slaves and Indians from having guns—”misses the mark” and “cannot provide the basis for a historical analogue,” the judge said in Friday’s ruling. Basically, the only gun control allowed during the founding was based in racial or religious animus and so those laws cannot be used as analogs under a Bruen analysis. This case is on appeal now, of course. Keep a watch over it and how the DOJ responds to determine what they've got in the hopper vs Bruen analyses.
The case itself was about a traffic stop that found weed and a gun that went federal because weed and a gun. So weed is the decision. However, if you look at the language of the decision, it applies to any prohibited substance. The DOJ argued that per se, a possessor of such a substance was a 'violent' and 'unvirtuous' person (recall the analogs they cite were targeted toward the 'unvirtuous' like natives, blacks, catholics etc). The court ruled that per se they were not, as possession contains no elements of violent or otherwise unvirtuous behavior PER SE. Not that it cannot be in some contexts, just that it would in fact require that additional context. This is going to be part of the only final convictions of a violent felony or crime of moral turpitude bar move cases. The other I can think of off the top of my head is out of the 5th circuit re: a simple DV TRO shouldn't bar you from ownership as they are ex parte proceedings you had not right to defend yourself or confront witnesses at.
right now, someone who takes Oxy with a prescription is not in violation of 18 USC 922 if they own a firearm. Someone with a medical marijuana card is.
True, that's the biggest risk though the ATF has kindly condescended to not enforce that rule in most cases. For now. One notes they did that with braces at first too. My point being its a bit of a more broadly applicable decision than the headline allows for.
Indeed. I was just tickled by the very idea that an attorney in the modern era would stand up in front of a federal judge and argue with a straight face that we should allow X law because its just like this other law we had...... that targeted based on race, religion, political creed, or second class citizen status. Who the **** would DO that? How do you not just tell your boss: That doesn't make any ****ing sense.
