After a confidential informant bought 1.9 grams of crack cocaine from defendant Brandon Hendrix on April 21, 2009, law enforcement officers obtained a warrant to search his residence. When they arrived, they found defendant present and under the influence of marijuana, crack cocaine and alcohol. Their search uncovered a loaded SKS rifle, a .45 caliber Ruger pistol, a Winchester shotgun, ammunition, knives and drug paraphernalia. Defendant was arrested the next day and charged in federal court with knowing and unlawful possession of firearms while being an unlawful user of marijuana and crack cocaine, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)....I think one of the reasons the Volokh Conspiracy is so popular is because of that sexy lawyer-talk. Non-lawyers like me feel proud of ourselves for just being able to follow. And who would dare question anything?[D]efendant’s argument fails because he has not shown that he is subject to any real burden. If he does not use controlled substances, then § 922(g)(3) imposes no restriction on his possession of guns. If he chooses to use them, then he cannot legally possess a gun. The choice is his, not the government’s....
[I]t is not necessary to consider ... whether a person prosecuted under § 922(g)(3) should be subject to a lifetime ban on gun possession, the natural consequence of a felony conviction for violation of this statute. One could argue that the prohibition should not last any longer than the person’s use of controlled substances, but defendant has neither made this argument nor suggested that he would qualify for relief if it were adopted, so I will not address it.
The comments immediately went into a discussion of the 1st Amendment and free speech.
What's your opinion? Should a person who uses drugs be allowed to own guns? Should the marijuana smoker be allowed and the crack cocaine smoker not be? How do you think it should work?
My idea is since there are too many guns around now, we should tighten up in every way possible. Using drugs, drunkenness, abuse of any kind should all be disqualifiers. Why would legitimate gun owners who don't involve themselves in those activities object? Wouldn't this benefit them as well?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Mikeb30200:
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the premise that drinking or drugging should result in people not being allowed to own guns--for several reasons. Not the least of them is that most hunters I know, the majority of whom are not interested in guns outside of hunting, like to party--some more than others. If they drink while they hunt, different story.
Having said this, the idea that everybody needs an arsenal of weaponry to defend themselves is still one that I find pretty silly.
Using drugs, drunkenness, abuse of any kind should all be disqualifiers. Why would legitimate gun owners who don't involve themselves in those activities object.
ReplyDeleteillegal drug use already is a disqualifier MikeB. Then again I doubt you've ever even seen form 4473.
Demo once again misses the point. It's not about "need" nor his definition of "arsenal"
MikeB: “Should a person who uses drugs be allowed to own guns?”
ReplyDeletePlease tell me this is not why you want to see pot legalized- to deny more gun ownership.
MikeB: “Using drugs, drunkenness, abuse of any kind should all be disqualifiers.”
…while using guns? Because I’ve been drunk before. Many times actually.
Democommie: “Having said this, the idea that everybody needs an arsenal of weaponry to defend themselves is still one that I find pretty silly.”
What is an arsenal? If you have a small pistol for CCW, and a 12ga riot for home defense, a bench shooting rifle, a deer hunting rifle, throw in a long barrel shotgun for duck hunting and a few collectables… is that an arsenal? What if someone only has one gun, and they chose an AR for easy availability of cheap ammo, low recoil, bench shooting, freestyle target shooting, taking out varmints on the farm, etc… Since that is their only gun, it also happens to be their home defense gun (you have railed against people using an AR for that purpose). Would you prefer they build up their arsenal instead?
Mikeb says:
ReplyDeleteUsing drugs, drunkenness, abuse of any kind should all be disqualifiers.
So, Mikeb, should I assume that you're perfectly OK with medical marijuana user, and victim of armed assaults on his home, Steve Sarich, being rendered disarmed and helpless for the next wave of attackers?
Also, when you list "drunkenness" as a disqualifying factor for gun ownership, do you mean that anyone who ever allows his blood alcohol content to reach .08% (the standard in most states for Driving Under the Influence) should be barred from gun ownership--sentenced, in other words, to abject defenselessness?
If not--if you, in other words, believe that occasional use of alcohol, including use that would make operation of an automobile illegal, should not result in state-mandated defenselessness, are you prepared to argue that occasional use of marijuana is somehow inherently different from occasional use of alcohol?
Dear Zorro, Thanks for the link and thanks for the comment. I've missed you around here lately.
ReplyDeleteThose are interesting questions you ask, to which, I'm afraid I don't have answers. By "drunkenness" being a disqualifier, I don't mean the occasional moderate drinker who may once in a while go over the limit. I mean the heavy hitter who is impaired by alcohol. How to screen for this I don't know.
I'm all for marijuana, in fact I hope they legalize it in California later this year, but I don't see how pot smoking can fail to impair a person who owns guns to the point they need to choose one or the other. If the guy has to stay stoned all the time for a medical condition, or simply because he likes to, hopefully later this year in CA, fine, but he shouldn't have a gun. Doesn't the marijuana high make a person less capable of handling a gun responsibly?
Generally, I'd like to see fewer guns in the world because I think Lott and Kleck have it exactly backwards. In order to achieve this, where do we start, certainly not with the passionate gun owner who trains all the time and possesses an arsenal. We start with the marginal people who present a danger. Stricter requirements with regards alcohol, drugs, unintentional shootings and domestic violence are what we need.
"Demo once again misses the point. It's not about "need" nor his definition of "arsenal""
ReplyDeletemikey, wtf are you talking about?
here's one definition of "need":
". A condition or situation in which something is required or wanted:"
and here's one definition for "arsenal":
"1.a place for making or storing weapons and other munitions"
From what I read here and elsewhere you and others have said, on numerous occasions that you have weapons for self-defense. That would be I guess, a "need". I also read that most of you have more than one firearm and the appropriate rounds--like your Hornady TAP rounds--for doing that very thing, and that you store them in your homes. So, what part am I incorrect on. Oh, wait, I get it, you don't like what I'm saying. Oh, well, that's too bad.
MikeB: “where do we start, certainly not with the passionate gun owner who trains all the time and possesses an arsenal. We start with the marginal people who present a danger.”
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean by “start”? And where do you go from there? Who is next?
So according to demo's definition, you can have no guns and still have an arsenal. The Brady Campaign would love that.
ReplyDeleteSo according to demo's definition, you can have no guns and still have an arsenal.
ReplyDeleteJust shows you how out of touch with reality he and his ilk really are.