The limits of the 2nd Amendment

[Elky Welky]

Key word is was. Does that legally prevent you from buying a firearm?

The way the form is written (and given that it is being prosecuted at all), the prosecutors are arguing yes.

Which is where I see the strain on the Second Amendment. Any right enshrined in the Constitution or Bill of Rights is subject to far stricter standards if the government wants to curb that right for any reason. Here, the government is relying upon the gun purchaser to violate their (5th Amendment) rights against self incrimination by admitting to using (but not being convicted of using) a controlled substance in order to keep them from having a gun (2nd Amendment).

 

[Dsnow9]

Alcohol, coffee, and soda would all fall under that statement technically.

Punctuation sir, that quote says unlawful user or addicted to?

I don’t believe that is how it is actually phrased on the form though. Just pointing out that from a legal standpoint the phrase I responded to said “or addicted to”.

 

[TheTone]

How does the form or the ATF define being an addict?

 

[HappyCamper]

My personal opinion is that in the name of public safety it’s justifiable to limit a person who is under the influence of alcohol or scheduled controlled substance from possessing a firearm. Many people will argue that shouldn’t remove someone’s civil liberties but Notice I said while “under the influence”, not just an unlawful user. Just like you shouldn’t drive a car when drunk/high but can when you sober up. I’m sure there are people on this forum who are technically prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law since they unlawfully use marijuana (still federally prohibited) on the regular.

In my job I encounter many people suffering substance abuse issues and people prohibited from possessing firearms for a number of reasons (prior felonies, active protection orders against them, under Indictment, drug user, etc) and I’m not advocating for anyone in those categories to possess firearms. I adopt the argument that certain civil liberties, like the 2nd amendment, only apply to the “virtuous citizen” (I stole that term from a case I’ll mention below).

Interestingly, the subject of who should be prohibited from possessing firearms is currently being litigated in the 9th Circuit in Duarte. That court held a felony conviction alone shouldn’t automatically prohibit someone from possessing firearms, only those who are convicted of Founding-era type felonies (muster, treason, etc). Things like Criminal Endangerment and Tax Fraud (non-violent crimes) wouldn’t cause one to lose their rights. Just an FYI the case is ongoing and I wouldn’t expect this to stick…

A final thought, listening to some of the news coverage of the trial seems like people are trying to excuse Hunter’s actions since he was high when he allegedly did them. Is no one going to point out that Voluntary impairment is never a defense? That’s like saying someone who gets drunk and cusses a fatal DUI should get let off because he was drunk when he made the poor decisions.

 

[Dsnow9]

The way the form is written (and given that it is being prosecuted at all), the prosecutors are arguing yes.

Which is where I see the strain on the Second Amendment. Any right enshrined in the Constitution or Bill of Rights is subject to far stricter standards if the government wants to curb that right for any reason. Here, the government is relying upon the gun purchaser to violate their (5th Amendment) rights against self incrimination by admitting to using (but not being convicted of using) a controlled substance in order to keep them from having a gun (2nd Amendment).

Will be an interesting case to follow! The political side of it makes it even more interesting. Will likely set precedent moving forward but who knows… maybe they will just file some paperwork incorrectly and he will be convicted but walk on a technicality…

 

[SAJ-99]

I didn't even think of that actually. I was more thinking of what is the defined amount of time for "are you a user of"? If my last joint was a day ago, am I a user of? How about a week ago? A month ago? A year? 10 years ago?

As Bill Clinton famously said, it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. In this case, it is "are".

 

[WC53]

Normally the question is like, have you been convicted of armed robbery in the past 6 months….. Now they be chasin crackheads and ho’s

 

[howl]

Everyone has a natural right to self defense amd therefore the commonly used tools to effect defense. That is all there is to it.

Form 4473 shouldn't exist at all.

 

[Dsnow9]

Everyone has a natural right to self defense amd therefore the commonly used tools to effect defense. That is all there is to it.

Form 4473 shouldn't exist at all.

Well in Colorado they are now giving illegal aliens drivers licenses if they had a drivers license in their home country. The amount of people that have not spoken any English in the gun stores lately is astonishing. All have pulled out their crisp, new, shiny drivers licenses and spent some coin.

 

[brownbear932008]

If they haven't been convicted of a felony my opinion is they shouldn't be denied the ability to buy and bear guns. I am not saying being a felon is the end all answer of whether a person should be able to do so though.

Along these same lines how do you feel about someone that has a mental disorder or has been hospitalized for such?

I mean let's be honest these types can be fine one day and off their rockers the next. A guy/lady could fall off the deep end over a divorce, financial problems, ect and fall under this one if all the stars aline.

 

[perma]

Form 4473, question 11e

Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?’

What was his answer when he bought the gun?

The depressant I’m addicted to is applying for things that I know I’ll never draw.

 

[bucdoego]

Hunter Biden’s trial is interesting. To those not following, he was addicted to crack cocaine for a period of his life, and the prosecution is claiming that he lied on the ATF form when he declared that he did not use illegal drugs.

To my knowledge, he wasn’t convicted of possession or any other drug related crime at the time of the purchase.

Which leads to my question: if someone isn’t a convicted felon, but also uses illegal drugs, should they still have the right to keep and bear arms?

A reminder: marijuana also, for the purposes of that form, has been considered an illegal drug, even though it is legal in many states.

Should Mr. Biden be convicted, there would be grounds for a 2nd amendment challenge to this language on the form. Of course, those that are politically motivated won’t like the name attached to this case, but the 2nd amendment piece still strikes me as noteworthy and perhaps even precedent setting in the future, should he challenge the (what I believe to be inevitable) conviction for this crime.

Interested in the thoughts of the HT crowd.

Well, what does the Bruen decision tell us about how to decide such question? One part of the Bruen guidance tells us to look to the time of the founding when the second amendment was written to understand its meaning. That would be 1791-1792.

So what restrictions were in place in that time for similar conditions? I.E., inebriation. Did gun owners leave their guns home whet they frequented drinking establishments? Were their gun rights infringed for days, weeks, months, years, etc. for carrying arms while intoxicated?

Were those that had felonious criminal records banned from all gun possession? Permanently?

Questions like these are before SCOTUS currently. Rahimi and Range to name two. Oral argument has been heard for Rahimi and a ruling is expected before the July Fourth Holiday. Today is an Opinion Day for the court, so we could even have an answer as early as an hour from now.

United States v. Rahimi - SCOTUSblog

Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court

www.scotusblog.com

 

[Stone_Ice_1]

Along these same lines how do you feel about someone that has a mental disorder or has been hospitalized for such?

I mean let's be honest these types can be fine one day and off their rockers the next. A guy/lady could fall off the deep end over a divorce, financial problems, ect and fall under this one if all the stars aline.

So this is the reason for the 2nd part of my comment, that the felony charge or not shouldn't be the only determining factor. This is the tougher question to me. Where exactly do you draw the line on the mental health/disorders? How do you determine what is too bat shit crazy to responsibly own a gun? I am unsure on what the answer is here.

 

[utah400elk]

Having worked in LE for over 27 years. Drug addict/user, per current court cases, has been established at one year from addiction/last use. It not a lifetime ban just while using illegal drugs.

For the mental prohibition…it requires an adjudication of mental deficient in court. The 72 hour hold does not work. It is really hard to get a Mental adjudication to prohibit people from having guns…as it should be. Many of my ex girlfriends would testify I am crazy and the fact that I throw so much money at long shot draw odds might also suggest a few issues

I am just stating the current status and not arguing any points. Carry on.

 

[ismith]

In a perfect world there would be absolutely no infringement of the constitution. There are plenty of other things he should fry for, along with his old man and at el. Now that political persecution is NOT off the table perhaps some changes will be made?

 

[The Hedgehog]

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[elkduds]

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

There is no constitutional right to modify emissions.

 

[Elky Welky]

One part of the Bruen guidance tells us to look to the time of the founding when the second amendment was written to understand its meaning.

This isn't so much Bruen as it is simply the concept of "Originalism." Depending on which Justice writes the opinion, some rely on originalism, some don't. Scalia was a big proponent of originalism when it served his purposes. But it's heavily debated amongst constitutional scholars and there was even concern at the time of drafting the constitution that there would be people unwilling to adapt. (Neither here nor there, but like Thomas Jefferson, I'm in the camp that thinks its silly to try to apply antiquated thinking to contemporary problems.)

 

[noharleyyet]

The idiot'd hafta be on drugs to throw a Colt Cobra away.

 

[Idahoarcheryhunter]

Surprised this hasn’t gone off the rails yet.