Appeals court nullifies federal gun law in Hunter Biden case.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ⁣Strikes⁤ Down Federal Law on Drug Users and Gun Possession

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit made a⁤ significant ruling on⁤ Wednesday, voiding a federal law that prohibited unlawful drug users from possessing ⁤guns. This decision was based on the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling ⁤from last year.

Under the federal statute⁤ known as 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3),⁤ individuals classified as “unlawful users of or addicted to any controlled substance,” including marijuana, could be banned from owning firearms. Violating this​ law could result in up to 10 years in prison.

The recent ruling only⁤ applies⁤ to Texas,⁣ Louisiana, and Mississippi. However, it has a direct impact on⁤ the case of Patrick Daniels, who challenged the law. Daniels, who was convicted ​in July 2022, will now have​ his conviction overturned. He had been sentenced to nearly four years in prison and three years of probation after being⁢ arrested in April 2022. Law enforcement officers found marijuana and two loaded firearms in his ‌car.

The case, known‌ as U.S. v. Daniels,⁢ was written by Judge Jerry Smith, with Judges Stephen Higginson and ‍Don Willett joining. They concluded that the law ⁤violated the Second Amendment and did not align with the Supreme Court’s test established in Bruen v. New York Rifle & Pistol Association. This test states that firearms ‌laws must adhere to ⁣the nation’s “historical tradition of firearm ​regulation.”

“Just as there was 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 an impairing influence,” Smith wrote. ‍”Indeed, it is helpful to compare the tradition surrounding the insane⁤ and ​the tradition surrounding the intoxicated side-by-side.”

The⁤ federal statute applied‌ not only when a person was intoxicated but⁢ also when they were sober and in possession of a controlled substance.

The opinion further suggests that while the ‌founders “institutionalized the ‍insane and stripped them of their guns,” they allowed alcoholics to possess firearms while sober.

This ruling by the 5th Circuit marks the ​first⁢ time ⁣an appellate court has declared two separate ⁢federal laws invalid under the Bruen test. Previously, ‍the court voided a federal statute⁤ that⁢ made it⁣ a crime for someone subject to⁢ a domestic​ violence restraining order to​ possess a firearm. This ruling is‍ currently being appealed and is awaiting oral arguments at the Supreme Court.

Judge Higginson, who agreed with the outcome of the Daniels decision, ⁢expressed concerns about the‌ scope of the Bruen test. He believes that the Supreme Court’s decision on the domestic‍ violence statute will likely impact the result of this case.

“Uncertainty and upheaval resulting from best efforts to apply Bruen now extend far beyond our dockets. Myriad and obvious public safety laws, some over a century old, face‌ inconsistent invalidation,” Higginson wrote.

Higginson also highlighted the inconsistencies in how lower courts have interpreted the Bruen test. Some courts, like the​ 5th‍ Circuit,‌ have taken it to its far reaches, while others have been cautious ‍about its application to existing ‍firearms regulations.

It⁣ is worth noting that Hunter Biden, President Joe Biden’s son, is currently negotiating a ⁢plea deal with prosecutors in Delaware under the same federal statute that was struck ⁢down by the appeals court.

Brandon Beck, an assistant professor of law at Texas Tech University, described 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) ‍as “garbage.” He argued that the language ⁢of the statute could potentially ​make even users of ⁤Adderall liable.

“This statute is garbage. It has been since ⁣it was enacted in 1986. And people that⁤ work in this area know it, but this is the first time​ the judges are just kind of finally saying, ‘Oh, maybe there is something wrong here,'” Beck said.

While the ruling in Daniels is seen as ⁢a victory for gun rights advocates, Judge Higginson’s language in the opinion serves as a warning.⁣ He cautions against any⁢ further reductionism of the Bruen precedent,‌ as it‌ could lead ​to the dismantling of ⁤laws that have protected the country for generations.

“This state of affairs will be nothing less than a Second Amendment caricature, ‍a right turned inside out, against freedom and security in our State,” Higginson‍ added.

*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases