In a recent court decision, the Fifth Circuit Court has struck down a law that prohibited known drug users from owning firearms. This decision comes after the Supreme Court allowed courts to reexamine gun laws under a new legal standard. The court stated that the 1968 law is unconstitutional and does not justify disarming nonviolent drug users. This ruling could have implications for other similar cases in the region under the jurisdiction of the Fifth Circuit.
Interestingly, this is the same law that Hunter Biden was charged with violating when he purchased a firearm in 2018. It is unclear how this new ruling will affect his case, as it is currently being scrutinized by a federal judge in Delaware. This decision will also allow other defendants convicted under this law in the Fifth Circuit to challenge their convictions.
US vs Daniels -“Just as there is no historical justification for disarming a citizen of sound mind. There is no tradition that supports disarming, a sober citizen who is not currently under impairing influence.” Smith wrote.https://t.co/Y4XZaoT1UE
— 🌺Rhonda (@rhondacarlisle9) August 10, 2023
This ruling is part of a larger trend following the Bruen decision, which has changed how courts approach Second Amendment cases. It will likely have far-reaching consequences beyond just concealed-carry laws, potentially impacting long-standing gun control laws like the 1968 Gun Control Act. We have yet to see all the legal implications of the Bruen decision.
From a due process perspective, it is important to note that the defendant in this case was not given a drug test and there was no evidence of impairment at the time of the arrest. His conviction and denial of Second Amendment rights were solely based on the discovery of marijuana remnants and his admission of marijuana use. This raises questions about the lifelong denial of a fundamental liberty without proper evidence.
Overall, this decision marks another step in reevaluating gun regulations and could have significant consequences for Second Amendment rights. It will be interesting to see how future cases unfold and what further changes may come from the Bruen decision.