The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Wednesday struck down a federal law banning illegal drug users from owning firearms.
The law, 18 USC § 922(g)(3), prohibits “illegal users or addicts of controlled substances,” including marijuana, from possessing firearms. Violators can be sentenced to up to 10 years in prison. But a panel of three judges, citing a landmark Supreme Court gun rights ruling last year, unanimously ruled that the law applied to Patrick Daniels was unconstitutional.
Daniels, who admitted to being a regular marijuana user, was arrested in April 2022 after police searched his car and found marijuana and two loaded firearms. He was convicted in July 2022 and sentenced to nearly four years in prison, suspended for three years, but a Fifth Circuit panel has now reversed the conviction.
While the decision is limited to Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, it could affect ongoing federal lawsuits against Hunter Biden, which are indicted in Delaware under the same law. Former U.S. Assistant Attorney Andrew McCarthy told Fox News. The Justice Department could use the Fifth Circuit opinion as the basis for a new plea bargain.
Court Drops Hawaii’s Knife Ban in Controversial Second Amendment Lawsuit
“Hunter Biden’s situation is easily distinguishable from that of Patrick Daniels, but the Justice Department decided that the Fifth Circuit ruling would give Biden a suspended indictment (with two years’ probation as currently proposed). It could justify supporting the exercise of discretionary powers to be given “if the conditions are met) to be fired in a plea bargain,” McCarthy said.
The Fifth Circuit case, known as US v. Daniels, was ruled by Justices Jerry Smith, Stephen Higginson, and Don Willett. They both argued that the 922(g)(3) restrictions were too broad to apply to Daniels and were not supported by the “historic tradition of firearms control” that the Bruen Supreme Court called for.
“Just as there has historically been no justification for disarming citizens of sound mind, so there is now no tradition in favor of disarming cool-headed citizens who are not adversely affected. ‘” Smith wrote. “Certainly, it is instructive to compare the traditions surrounding the madman side by side with the traditions surrounding the drunkard.”
The text of the law does not distinguish between a person who is intoxicated and a person who is under the influence of alcohol and is in possession of a drug paraphernalia at the time of arrest.
The court said that founding-era laws “institutionalized the mentally ill and stripped them of their guns, but allowed alcoholics to soberly possess firearms.”
NRA wins legal victory in battle with Electoral Commission over cover-up documents
“In short, neither restrictions on the mentally ill, nor the tradition of regulation around drunkenness, can justify the conviction of Daniels,” Smith wrote. The court further said there was no historical tradition to disenfranchise guns for non-violent people, drug users and others.
“The government, setting aside details of the historical record, is asking us to follow Congress’ contemporary ruling that Daniels is probably dangerous because he smokes marijuana multiple times a month. It’s like a toothless rationale review.” In the absence of a comparable regulatory tradition in the 18th or 19th century, §922(g)(3) is a Second Amendment cannot be established as constitutional under ”
The Fifth Circuit has now declared two federal gun control laws unconstitutional, building on Bruen’s precedent. A previous U.S. v. Rahimi case, in which a court struck down a federal law criminalizing possession of a gun by a person under a domestic violence ban, was appealed to the Supreme Court.
In his concurring opinion, Higginson criticized Bruen for causing “uncertainty and confusion” in how the government applied the Public Safety Law, which was “faced with inconsistent nullification.” ‘ said. He observed that lower courts interpreted Bruen very differently, yielding different outcomes for individuals across the country charged with the same federal crimes.
Supreme Court Allows Continued Regulation Of So-called ‘Ghost Guns’
“Defendants convicted of gun offenses in one jurisdiction are now acquitted in another as courts have already addressed the ramifications of the Bullen case,” the judge said.
So did Hunter Biden, who was a crack cocaine user when he purchased a Colt Cobra .38 Special from gun store StarQuest Shooters in Wilmington, Del., 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3). has been charged with violating , 2018.
McCarthy said the Justice Department could use the Fifth Circuit’s decision to soften Biden, even though there are fundamental differences between Mr. Biden and Mr. Daniels.
“A panel of the Fifth Circuit Court unanimously ruled that the 922(g)(3) restrictions were too broad to apply to Daniels. Granted gun bans to people under the influence, but not gun bans to people under the influence of drugs and alcohol, sometimes drunk, but at the time they had guns were clearly sober people,” he explained.
Colorado Federal Judge Blocks Raising Age Requirement to Buy Guns
“Unlike Mr. Daniels, who is a self-confessed regular marijuana user, Mr. Biden was a cocaine addict and was a heavy cocaine user in October 2018, when he owned at least one firearm. It’s been proven,” McCarthy continued. “Marijuana is now legal in many states (although it is still considered a prohibited substance under federal law and is not enforced). Cocaine is an illegal drug under state and federal law and is highly addictive. , is more debilitating and therefore its possession is more dangerous.” Distribution is more severely punishable under criminal law.
“So we can differentiate cases,” McCarthy said. “Nevertheless, it is not unreasonable to say that the DOJ needs to reconsider its 922(g)(3) standard of prosecution in light of the Daniels decision. Treatment—that is, the Biden Department of Justice intended to prosecute people in similar circumstances, but was he given permission? It’s too early. ”
Gun rights activists applauded the Fifth Circuit’s opinion and condemned 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(3) as an unconstitutional restriction on the Second Amendment.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
But Mr. Higginson said that “further reductionism” under the Bruen government would “systematically, albeit inconsistently, judicially dismantle the laws that have helped protect our country for generations.” It means to do,” he warned.
Higginson wrote, “This is nothing less than a caricature of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, an upside down right against our liberty and security.”