Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association
Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Shelocta, Pennsylvania
    (Indiana County)
    Age
    56
    Posts
    861
    Rep Power
    1431943

    Default Seventh Circuit upholds federal law prohibiting drug users from possessing guns

    In U.S. v. Yancey, No. 09-1138 (Sept. 3, 2010)

    http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/do...9-1138_003.pdf

    Interesting read.
    One question for the judges. What enumerated power in the constitution gives the feds any say over domestic violent crime? They have the power to define and punish piracies on the high seas, and offenses against the laws of nations.
    Case law,built upon case law, upon case law without returning to the original constitutional law is judicial fiat!
    Last edited by YosemiteSam; September 18th, 2010 at 09:52 PM.
    NRA life member/ILA/PVA/Whittington Center sponsor
    GOA member/Second Amendment Foundation member
    NAHC life member/KECA founding committee member

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Gouldsboro, Pennsylvania
    (Wayne County)
    Age
    51
    Posts
    2,430
    Rep Power
    21474849

    Default Re: Seventh Circuit upholds federal law prohibiting drug users from possessing guns

    This is all I got from your link.

    The page cannot be found
    The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.
    "How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessnes."

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Shelocta, Pennsylvania
    (Indiana County)
    Age
    56
    Posts
    861
    Rep Power
    1431943

    Default Re: Seventh Circuit upholds federal law prohibiting drug users from possessing guns

    Quote Originally Posted by Sandcut View Post
    This is all I got from your link.
    Should be fixed.
    NRA life member/ILA/PVA/Whittington Center sponsor
    GOA member/Second Amendment Foundation member
    NAHC life member/KECA founding committee member

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
    (Dauphin County)
    Posts
    1,889
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: Seventh Circuit upholds federal law prohibiting drug users from possessing guns

    Quote Originally Posted by YosemiteSam View Post
    In U.S. v. Yancey, No. 09-1138 (Sept. 3, 2010)

    http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/do...9-1138_003.pdf
    It looks to me like the judges here had a conclusion they wanted to come to, and pieced together the cases and explanation to fit. What they have done here is not some faithful deference to Supreme Court findings; these lower courts do not have to wait for SCOTUS to give us a right before they can recognize it as well. How can we tell this court is from the start less than honest about its intentions? It grabs the meaningless dicta from Heller and McDonald which becomes not only a preface but the excuse for their finding.

    In considering the constitutionality of § 922(g)(3), we
    begin with the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in
    Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct 3020
    (2010). Although the Court concluded that the Second
    Amendment preserves “the individual right to possess
    and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” Heller, 128
    S. Ct. at 2797, that right is not unlimited. The Court has
    since admonished that Heller “did not cast doubt on
    such longstanding regulatory measures as ‘prohibitions
    on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally
    ill.’ ” McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3047 (quoting Heller, 128 S. Ct.
    at 2816-17). Heller’s footnote 26 underscores that at least
    these two categorical bans are “presumptively lawful.”
    Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2817 n.26. The Court declined to
    further elaborate on the full extent of the Second Amendment’s
    reach, noting that “there will be time enough to
    expound upon the historical justifications for the exceptions we have mentioned if and when those exceptions
    come before us.” Id. at 2821. With this case, we
    move beyond those exceptions to a different, but equally
    defensible, categorical ban.
    If you don't notice the first time you read through, they spent much time on explaining how drug abuse must be bad and therefore entitles congress, of all bodies in our republic, to enact law. But they take for granted that drug users are abusers, that the particular drug of use at hand can be categorically swept aside by quoting general studies without reviewing at all the facts at hand. It's a pretty good glossing...

    As I read through the opinion I could feels its emptyness, its lack of substance. These judges could stand the read the admonishment that I posted at http://forum.pafoa.org/concealed-ope...ml#post1334300 from time to time.

    As for the only thing they really got right, they characterized the ban here as a transient one that only exists as long as the contemporaneous use/abuse (since they never like to be clear) occurs while (physically?) possessing firearms, and duly cited United States v. Augustin,
    376 F.3d 135, 139 (3d Cir. 2004)
    .

    Just another day's work in the disgusting life of modern America...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    nashville, Tennessee
    Posts
    237
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: Seventh Circuit upholds federal law prohibiting drug users from possessing guns

    Alcoholics Anonymous say, "once an alcoholic always an alcoholic." I wonder if that court would condone going to AA meetings, writing everyone's name down and putting them on a list in order to prevent them from owning guns forever? Once an addict always an addict. Are they going to take someone's word? Is there testing? Monitoring? Questioning neighbors? Time frame? One month or ten years? Is the requirement going to equal across the States?

    What about "Congress enacted the exclusions in § 922(g) to keep
    guns out of the hands of presumptively risky people. See
    Dickerson v. New Banner Inst., Inc., 460 U.S. 103, 112 n.6
    (1983); see also S. REP. NO. 90-1501, at 22 (1968) (“The
    ready availability, that is, the ease with which any
    person can anonymously acquire firearms (including
    criminals, juveniles without the consent of their parents
    or guardians, narcotic addicts, mental defectives, armed
    groups who would supplant duly constituted public
    authorities, and others whose possession of firearms is
    similarly contrary to the public interest) is a matter of
    serious national concern.”). The broad objective of
    § 922(g)—suppressing armed violence—is without doubt
    an important one, see Williams, 2010 WL 3035483, at *6,
    Skoien, 2010 WL 2735747, at *3,..."

    If this court had their way anyone could be denied a gun based upon being a member of a "radical" group that believes the constitution authorizes an uprising in the event of tyrany.

    Makes one consider the meaning of "shall not be infringed."

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
    (Dauphin County)
    Posts
    1,889
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: Seventh Circuit upholds federal law prohibiting drug users from possessing guns

    ". . . enacted the exclusions . . . to keep guns out of the hands of presumptively risky people[, like] armed groups who would supplant duly constituted public authorities . . . "

    I think England felt the same way just a few centuries ago; that's why they were disarming the colonists, right? "possession of firearms is
    similarly contrary to the public interest"? "a matter of serious national concern"?

    How can so many be so willfully blind to the greatest concern that prompts enumeration of the right to keep and bear arms?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    nashville, Tennessee
    Posts
    237
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: Seventh Circuit upholds federal law prohibiting drug users from possessing guns

    Quote Originally Posted by MDJschool View Post
    How can so many be so willfully blind to the greatest concern that prompts enumeration of the right to keep and bear arms?
    1. They are not taught the constitution.
    2. They do not know why the the Bill of Rights was written.
    3. They've been told for years that they don't need guns because the police will protect them.
    4. They've been told guns should only be used for sporting and hunting.
    5. They don't care.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 70
    Last Post: December 19th, 2011, 05:11 PM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: August 22nd, 2009, 06:59 AM
  3. U.S. Guns Arming Mexican Drug Gangs; Second Amendment to Blame?
    By Gary in Pennsylvania in forum General
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: April 22nd, 2008, 05:22 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Local gun shops | Local shooting ranges | Philadelphia Shooting Ranges | Philadelphia Gun Shops | Pittsburgh Shooting Ranges | Pittsburgh Gun Shops