United States v. Daniels, 22-60596, Drug User Prohibition

[Flynn]

This one might get quite interesting, with this current Bruen standard ruling out of the 5th.

Drug user cannot be barred from owning guns, US court rules

https://news.yahoo.com/drug-user-cannot-barred-owning-024143534.html

 

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4147096-appeals-court-rules-for-man-who-challenged-ban-on-illegal-drug-users-possessing-firearms/#:~:text=A federal appeals court ruled,being convicted of the charge.

 

Ruling

 

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/22/22-60596-CR0.pdf

 

Quote

Although our decision is limited in scope, it is hard for me to avoid the conclusion that most, if not all, applications of § 922(g)(3) will likewise be deficient.

 

Quote

Of course, in the meantime, it is our job as an inferior court to apply the Supreme Court’s mandates and aid the development of this field of law.

 

Edited August 10, 2023 at 06:34 PM by Flynn

[Str8Shooter]

Just a thought...

 

During Prohibition, when alcohol was considered too dangerous to posses, as cannabis is now, were firearms of alcohol users confiscated?

 

And...

 

Is it just a coincidence that a decision in this case may be consequential to Hunter Biden's charge of possession of cannabis and a firearm? 

[soundguy]

The ruling seems to have been parsed as "a weed smoker (or user of alcohol) isn't in violation when not high" (drunk, inebriated or whatever). I haven't read much more than a notice from some 2A org.

 

I'm pretty sure firearms were confiscated from those who were drunk. The HB gun/drug charge was due to be dismissed, as possibly it should be, unless he was doing something stupid with a gun while he was high.

 

EDIT:

I accidentally deleted where I wrote that all I know about this is from some 2A org alert. I have not read the articles or ruling...

 

Cheers,

Tim

 

 

 

 

Edited August 10, 2023 at 09:52 PM by soundguy

[Flynn]

On 8/10/2023 at 4:49 PM, soundguy said:

I have not read the articles or ruling...

 

I attached the ruling in the original post, from my reading, the court concluded that even if one is an admitted habitual user of a drug they are not a prohibited person because of that drug use...  It appears the only historical analogs presented to the court showed that they could be temporarily denied carrying/using while directly under the influence, not be an entirely prohibited person denied the 2nd right because they use drugs...

 

It's going to be interesting where this goes as it's Federal law, it almost has to go to the SCOTUS unless every circuit concludes the same...

[Str8Shooter]

The confiscation of firearms from those who are actively drunk seems a no brainer.

 

The issue seems not the same as for mere possession while not intoxicated, such as if possession without use for months, for example.

[Euler]

NFA (1934) was the first national gun control law ever. FFA (1938) was the first law that prohibited (ex)felons from possessing firearms, although it was common founding era practice to forbid convicted murderers, rapists, burglars, and traitors from owning firearms subsequent to their release from prison (if they got a prison sentence instead of a death sentence). The FFA (1938) was mostly replaced/re-implemented by the GCA (1968).

Prohibition was repealed in December 1933. There's no overlap with gun control. However, Prohibition fueled the growth of organized crime, whose violence motivated the passage of the NFA, although it could be argued that legislators mostly used popular media as their source of information on the types of firearms they sought to ban.

Drug laws were comparatively lax during that period. I don't believe there was any national law prohibiting recreational narcotics until the Controlled Substances Act (1970), but there were several such state laws beginning in the 1910s.

[Flynn]

On 8/10/2023 at 5:28 PM, Euler said:

Drug laws were comparatively lax during that period. I don't believe there was any national law prohibiting recreational narcotics until the Controlled Substances Act (1970), but there were several such state laws beginning in the 1910s.

 

I think that is why the court turned to alcohol as a parallel when weighing analogs, because as you said there were essentially no laws in regards to drugs until recently and those new laws are all beyond the scope of Bruen's limited timeframe so the only potential analogs would have been alcohol related ones, and even though alcohol use was very widespread laws were few and far between and nothing anywhere near the scope of denying the 2nd entirely until recently...

 

If the SCOTUS holds true to Bruen (as many said when it was ruled upon) very few gun control laws will be able to remain standing, the only real question left is how true is the court going to stay to Bruen and for how long...

[mab22]

On 8/10/2023 at 5:18 PM, Str8Shooter said:

The confiscation of firearms from those who are actively drunk seems a no brainer.

 

The issue seems not the same as for mere possession while not intoxicated, such as if possession without use for months, for example.

Careful, if the police show up at your house and your .08 or .09 are you going to let them take your firearms “overnight”?

That neighbor that you don’t get along with called in that your were drinking and have firearms in the house….

[davel501]

On 8/10/2023 at 6:31 PM, mab22 said:

Careful, if the police show up at your house and your .08 or .09 are you going to let them take your firearms “overnight”?

That neighbor that you don’t get along with called in that your were drinking and have firearms in the house….

 

If you are drunk enough to open the door for the police then you are too drunk. 

[Flynn]

On 8/10/2023 at 5:18 PM, Str8Shooter said:

The confiscation of firearms from those who are actively drunk seems a no brainer.

 

The issue seems not the same as for mere possession while not intoxicated, such as if possession without use for months, for example.

 

I would not call it a 'no brainer' I believe it's actually quite complicated...  If you are a gun owner does that mean you can never drink without risk of confiscation?  If you are sitting at home drinking beers and you do absolutely nothing wrong with your firearms could the police show up and take them away if someone saw you drinking through your windows or at a BBQ in the back yard?  If you are at the bar and get a taxi home and the police are aware, could they follow you and the taxi to your house and confiscate your guns?

 

I would say it has to be handled similarly to drunk driving where there has to be other qualifiers, but since it's a right even more strict in favor of the person...  I would argue that since it's a right, that there would have to be probable cause beyond just being under the influence to deny the right...  For example, if you are drunk and make a threat, or brandish the weapon, or draw the weapon or act in a negligent manner with the weapon all while intoxicated then you are reaching or breached the potential level of confiscation...  Then once confiscated you now have another big can of worms opened as being drunk only last a short while, so a few hours later when you are no longer drunk would the police be obligated to return all your firearms asap or would they be allowed to continue to deny your rights and for how long when no real crime has even really been committed?

[Str8Shooter]

"Actively drunk" had more meaning for me than I conveyed.

 

Among friends one of them took out his gun threatening others. He was physically restrained and sustained injuries.

 

No police call and no report was made. As I remember it no one held his gun longer than it took for him to sober up.

 

This really had no relevance to this law or police.
 

[Jeffrey]

Why would someone advocate someone lose their rights if they get inebriated?  Bring back personal responsibility.

[Str8Shooter]

Why would anyone advocate someone lose their rights as if anything that they did post-inebriation or post-sobering up can be assumed to be related to a previous inebriation?

[yurimodin]

On 8/10/2023 at 6:34 PM, davel501 said:

 

If you are drunk enough to open the door for the police then you are too drunk. 

 

On 8/10/2023 at 5:28 PM, Euler said:

Prohibition was repealed in December 1933. There's no overlap with gun control. However, Prohibition fueled the growth of organized crime, whose violence motivated the passage of the NFA, although it could be argued that legislators mostly used popular media as their source of information on the types of firearms they sought to ban.

That's interest balancing......no longer allowed.

[Euler]

On August 11, 2023 at 02:59 PM, yurimodin said:→

...
That's interest balancing......no longer allowed.

It's a set of causal facts, not a legal argument.

[Str8Shooter]

I was being questioned for a jury trial (voir dire) for a marijuana use trial.

 

I was sworn in to testify under oath, sitting next to an FBI agent. I personally objected to the question being asked of each prospective juror if they had ever used marijuana. (To a man they testified they were all innocent of this crime. Ha Ha)

 

I thought it was inappropriate to be questioned while under oath and on the record if each juror, myself included, had ever committed what I know to be known at that time to be a crime.

 

The last potential juror was empaneled right before I would have had to choose (hypothetically, if I had used marijuana) whether to lie under oath or to testify against myself (if I had hypothetically ever used marijuana).

 

That left an impression on me.

 

"Patrick Daniels is one such “unlawful user”—he admitted to smoking marihuana multiple days per month." (From the appeal)

 

How did his admission of use get into his testimony ?  Would his ownership of a gun be relevant without what appears to be an admission of guilt?

 

 

 

 

[Euler]

On August 11, 2023 at 06:08 PM, Str8Shooter said:→

...
"Patrick Daniels is one such “unlawful user”—he admitted to smoking marihuana multiple days per month." (From the appeal)

How did his admission of use get into his testimony ? ...

The Miranda advisory includes something (the exact words aren't sacrosanct) like: You have the right to remain silent. If you give up the right to remain silent, anything you can AND WILL be used against you.

In simpler terms, everything you say is admissible against you. Your lawyer could try to argue that whatever you said is irrelevant to the charges ("truth of the matter asserted"), but that's not going to apply to an admission of drug use in a case that alleges drug use.

[Euler]

The government has petitioned the US Supreme Court for certiorari. (docket)

Edited October 11, 2023 at 03:45 AM by Euler

[soundguy]

On 8/11/2023 at 6:08 PM, Str8Shooter said:

"Patrick Daniels is one such “unlawful user”—he admitted to smoking marihuana multiple days per month." (From the appeal)

 

How did his admission of use get into his testimony ?  Would his ownership of a gun be relevant without what appears to be an admission of guilt?

 

On 8/11/2023 at 6:37 PM, Euler said:

The Miranda advisory includes something (the exact words aren't sacrosanct) like: You have the right to remain silent. If you give up the right to remain silent, anything you can AND WILL be used against you.

In simpler terms, everything you say is admissible against you. Your lawyer could try to argue that whatever you said is irrelevant to the charges ("truth of the matter asserted"), but that's not going to apply to an admission of drug use in a case that alleges drug use.

 

In other recent news, a man admitted drug use in his published memoir. In that case, it seemed acceptable here to use that against him in charging him with lying on a Federal Form to purchase and posses a gun.

 

Seems like it should be the same for all, whatever "the same" is.

 

Cheers,

Tim

[Euler]

The US DOJ filed a brief in US v Harris, a related case, and referred to Daniels (my underlining below).

Daily Caller said:→

The Department of Justice (DOJ) backed a ban on gun possession for marijuana users on Wednesday because individuals are "unlikely to put their guns away before using drugs."

In a brief filed with Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the DOJ said the ban "comfortably" fits within the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation, pointing to precedents that permitted disarming individuals intoxicated by alcohol, deemed dangerous or who have a mental illness. It argued the Fifth Circuit erred when it found in a separate case challenging the ban that history would only support disarming individuals "currently under an impairing influence."
...

Expect that argument when the US files its response to the Daniels petition (currently due by Monday, November 20).

[Flynn]

On 11/19/2023 at 1:54 AM, Euler said:

In a brief filed with Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the DOJ said the ban "comfortably" fits within the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation, pointing to precedents that permitted disarming individuals intoxicated by alcohol, deemed dangerous or who have a mental illness. It argued the Fifth Circuit erred when it found in a separate case challenging the ban that history would only support disarming individuals "currently under an impairing influence."

 

Did they even read what they wrote, they contradict their own argument?

 

They claim that history supports disarming while "intoxicated" and then claim the court errored when they said history supports disarming when "currently under an impairing influence."

 

Being intoxicated is definition synonymous for being under the influence...

 

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

I don't think that drug users, released felons, etc.. should be barred from the use of arms. However, I do have mixed feelings on some of these cases. Let me explain. After the NYSRA/Bruen ruling, I knew these kinds of cases were inevitable. Good. However they don't help our cause in the court of public opinion (look how the media is painting Rahimi), and for that reason, I simply wished our side went after other restrictions first. 

 

Oh well, I just hope pushing these cases, which don't have much public support outside the hard-core 2a community, doesn't back fire on us. 

[Euler]

Petition granted, vacated, and remanded for further consideration in light of Rahimi.

[Euler]

It's back. (shadow docket)

On January 6, the 5th Circuit again ruled for Daniels.

On March 27, the government asked Alito to extend the deadline to file a petition for certiorari.

On March 31, Alito extended the deadline from April 7 to May 6.

[Euler]

On April 18, the US again asked for an extension, this time to June 5.

On April 22, Alito extended the deadline to June 5.

[Euler]

On June 5, the US filed its petition. The response is due July 7.

On June 6, the Court assigned a docket number.

[Euler]

On June 20, Daniels requested an extension to respond from July 7 to July 21.

[Euler]

On June 23, the Court granted the extension.

[Euler]

On July 21, Daniels responded.

[Euler]

On August 5, the US replied. The reply contains the following points:

• The US still wants Hemani to be the lead case.
  
• The drug user prohibition is different from the convicted felon prohibition, so it doesn't have to be treated the same.
• There is no circuit split on the drug user prohibition. (That's an odd assertion, considering that the US is challenging a lower court saying Daniels could get his rights back in a new trial.)
• The DOJ has a new procedure for felons to get their 2A rights back administratively. (Also odd, considering that that procedure categorically denies people relief from drug user prohibitions.)

FWIW, I agree that the drug user prohibition is different from the convicted felon prohibition. It has less basis in text, history, and tradition.

Meanwhile, Hemani is an anti-American, pro-Iranian, foreign-born, naturalized drug dealer and generally vile person. It's easy to see why the US wants his case to lead. It'll be interesting to see which case the Court will pick to lead: one that's just about drug possession or one that has a whole bunch of other issues attached.