Supreme Court to weigh scope of gun rights for drug users
Ask who never gets charged.
The Supreme Court will hear its second of two significant gun rights cases this term on Monday when the justices grapple with gun rights for users of drugs, such as marijuana, in a case that has brought together unusual coalitions on both sides of the question.
The appeal in United States v. Hemani was brought by the Justice Department. The case focuses on the constitutionality of a federal statute barring firearm possession for any person who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.” The DOJ has asked the high court to reverse an appeals court’s finding that the law violated Ali Hemani’s Second Amendment right to bear arms, and to toss out a single-count indictment on that charge.
DOJ wants to keep current gun rights restrictions on drug users
The Justice Department under the Trump administration has usually petitioned against gun control laws, but in the Hemani case, the DOJ has argued that a prohibition on guns for drug users is one of the few restrictions permissible while upholding constitutional rights.
“Given the Second Amendment’s central role in our constitutional scheme, the government bears a significant burden in justifying restrictions on that right. Specifically, the government must show that the challenged regulation ‘is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.’ That is a stringent test, not a ‘regulatory blank check,'” the DOJ said in its brief. “This case presents narrow circumstances where the government can satisfy that rigorous burden.”
The Justice Department argued there are clear historical roots for laws allowing restrictions on drug users possessing guns, noting that the law’s restriction is “temporary and limited: a person regains his ability to possess arms as soon as he stops habitually using drugs.”
“All agree that there is a deeply rooted history and tradition of temporarily barring people from possessing firearms based on their use of alcohol. Further, all agree that this history and tradition would encompass the use of controlled substances such as marijuana,” the DOJ argued in its brief.
The DOJ also argued that the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, which found that the government may only limit gun rights when it “proves that a defendant was presently intoxicated while possessing a firearm,” is an “erroneous conclusion [that] ignores the vagrancy, civil-commitment, and surety laws that historically restricted the rights of habitual drunkards.”
The Trump Justice …
Ask who never gets charged.
The Supreme Court will hear its second of two significant gun rights cases this term on Monday when the justices grapple with gun rights for users of drugs, such as marijuana, in a case that has brought together unusual coalitions on both sides of the question.
The appeal in United States v. Hemani was brought by the Justice Department. The case focuses on the constitutionality of a federal statute barring firearm possession for any person who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.” The DOJ has asked the high court to reverse an appeals court’s finding that the law violated Ali Hemani’s Second Amendment right to bear arms, and to toss out a single-count indictment on that charge.
DOJ wants to keep current gun rights restrictions on drug users
The Justice Department under the Trump administration has usually petitioned against gun control laws, but in the Hemani case, the DOJ has argued that a prohibition on guns for drug users is one of the few restrictions permissible while upholding constitutional rights.
“Given the Second Amendment’s central role in our constitutional scheme, the government bears a significant burden in justifying restrictions on that right. Specifically, the government must show that the challenged regulation ‘is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.’ That is a stringent test, not a ‘regulatory blank check,'” the DOJ said in its brief. “This case presents narrow circumstances where the government can satisfy that rigorous burden.”
The Justice Department argued there are clear historical roots for laws allowing restrictions on drug users possessing guns, noting that the law’s restriction is “temporary and limited: a person regains his ability to possess arms as soon as he stops habitually using drugs.”
“All agree that there is a deeply rooted history and tradition of temporarily barring people from possessing firearms based on their use of alcohol. Further, all agree that this history and tradition would encompass the use of controlled substances such as marijuana,” the DOJ argued in its brief.
The DOJ also argued that the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, which found that the government may only limit gun rights when it “proves that a defendant was presently intoxicated while possessing a firearm,” is an “erroneous conclusion [that] ignores the vagrancy, civil-commitment, and surety laws that historically restricted the rights of habitual drunkards.”
The Trump Justice …
Supreme Court to weigh scope of gun rights for drug users
Ask who never gets charged.
The Supreme Court will hear its second of two significant gun rights cases this term on Monday when the justices grapple with gun rights for users of drugs, such as marijuana, in a case that has brought together unusual coalitions on both sides of the question.
The appeal in United States v. Hemani was brought by the Justice Department. The case focuses on the constitutionality of a federal statute barring firearm possession for any person who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.” The DOJ has asked the high court to reverse an appeals court’s finding that the law violated Ali Hemani’s Second Amendment right to bear arms, and to toss out a single-count indictment on that charge.
DOJ wants to keep current gun rights restrictions on drug users
The Justice Department under the Trump administration has usually petitioned against gun control laws, but in the Hemani case, the DOJ has argued that a prohibition on guns for drug users is one of the few restrictions permissible while upholding constitutional rights.
“Given the Second Amendment’s central role in our constitutional scheme, the government bears a significant burden in justifying restrictions on that right. Specifically, the government must show that the challenged regulation ‘is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.’ That is a stringent test, not a ‘regulatory blank check,'” the DOJ said in its brief. “This case presents narrow circumstances where the government can satisfy that rigorous burden.”
The Justice Department argued there are clear historical roots for laws allowing restrictions on drug users possessing guns, noting that the law’s restriction is “temporary and limited: a person regains his ability to possess arms as soon as he stops habitually using drugs.”
“All agree that there is a deeply rooted history and tradition of temporarily barring people from possessing firearms based on their use of alcohol. Further, all agree that this history and tradition would encompass the use of controlled substances such as marijuana,” the DOJ argued in its brief.
The DOJ also argued that the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, which found that the government may only limit gun rights when it “proves that a defendant was presently intoxicated while possessing a firearm,” is an “erroneous conclusion [that] ignores the vagrancy, civil-commitment, and surety laws that historically restricted the rights of habitual drunkards.”
The Trump Justice …
0 Comments
0 Shares
43 Views
0 Reviews
