From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

. . .

There isn't yet a decision in Hemani, in which illegal drug users are >temporarily prohibited persons.

The video maker wants Hemani to expand 2A rights. I don't get how that >follows his dislike of legal precedent being set on behalf of impure
persons. Well, you take the appeal you can get.

In any event, he's guessing that Hemani will be a very narrow ruling >interpreting the statutes in question and not expanding 2A rights.

Hemani is one bizarre case to get appealed as there is no real
controversy. Under federal law, drug users are prohibited persons with
respect to gun use, and the sentence can be up to 15 years. The
government just has to show any amount of use. FBI arrested the
defendant after a search of his home in which the gun was found,
together with illegal drugs. Defendant stated that he used marijuana
every other day.

At trial, defendant already had the charge thrown out based on a 5th
Circuit precedent that a defendant may indeed be a drug user but there
was no evidence of gun possession whilst under the influence of drugss.

There was an appeal to the 5th Circuit in which the government agreed
that the charge should be thrown out and the opinion upheld the trial
court ruling.

It then got appealled to to the Supreme Court. This time, the government
argued for the constitutionality of the statute based on historical laws
in place at the time of the founding. The government pointed out laws
against habitual drunks, how they would be jailed or made to post bond
to comply with conditions.

In a 9-0 decision, Gorsuch said the historical analysis wasn't analogous
as a habitual drunk could never manage his own affairs and wasn't just
someone who got into trouble or harmed others whilst drunk.

He further ruled that habitual drunkard laws were generally not about protecting the public from crimes that might be committed by drunkards
and the law couldn't be justified on that basis.

Gorsuch made the opinion very narrow to this specific instance in which
the government showed only drug use and nothing else related to use or possession while under the influence or when the government had actual
evidence that a drug user under he influece was actually dangerous.

Did the Solicitor General throw the case? I still don't understand how
it got appealed at circuit and then to the Supreme Court since the
government, at first, wasn't trying to overturn the 5th Circuit opinion.

Court sides with challenger to law banning drug users from possessing
guns
By Amy Howe
SCOTuSblog
Jun 18, 2026 https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/06/court-sides-with-challenger-to-law-banning-drug-users-from-possessing-guns/
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2