Nick Rekieta & his wife have just been arrested on felony gun and drug charges
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (80)
sorted by:
It's actually worse, much worse. Notice how the charge is 'user of controlled substances', because section 922 of the federal criminal code just says any user of controlled substances
This technically has no time limit - which is why Hunter Biden (as much as I usually say haha fuck that guy) is being charged, we know he used drugs, he's admitted it, so him having a firearm ever is technically chargeable.
Thankfully this is being challenged in court, but holy shit it is bad.
I can understand not allowing operating firearms while under the influence but just possessing them should have nothing directly to do with the drugs
And that exact argument is currently bubbling up to scotus. Under the Bruen test there is no history, text, or tradition of barring drug users from possessing firearms in general.
Any analogous laws related to alcohol deal with the actual use of firearms while also under the influence, not possession in general.
Put more simply, while they may have made it illegal for the drunk to wave his gun around, nobody in the past would have thought it was okay to prevent him from owning a gun at all or use it when he was sober.
I remember reading the bruen decision and reading that line where that 'test' was described, and almost crying because it spells doom for all the freedom hating fucks, it will just take time.
I'm not as optimistic.
In theory, you're correct.
In practice, we have judges telling defendants that certain amendments don't exist in their courtroom.
Yeah one day that judge could get over turned and get reprimanded (lol) but each year we have reasonable judges retiring and commie judges taking their place.
Didn't the 9th Circuit just decide that felons can have guns?
Yes, that case was decided earlier this month, but it was a panel decision, meaning the government will appeal to an en banc hearing and the 9th will likely reverse, as has been their pattern. Then it's on to a SCOTUS appeal.
There's some other cases to watch that I think are more applicable to the specific circumstance here though: US v. Daniels, where the 5th decided last August that the provision of the law that says if you're a user of unlawful drugs you cannot own a firearm is unconstitutional. Daniels who's facing the same exact gun charge as in this case.
This is consistent with US v. Harrison a February case where an Oklahoma district court came to the same conclusion. However in August of last year, a district court judge in Iowa did convict somebody for violating the same exact provision in US Code. We're likely headed for a circuit split that will put this issue in front of SCOTUS.
It won't help these fools with the drug charges, but it wouldn't be surprised if by the end of their trials and appeals the gun charge gets dropped as a result of one of these other cases.
Yup. I actually side with Hunter on that one, and hope he goes hard on arguing on 2A grounds. Not only do I support that, but it's hilarious if he says he has a completely inalienable right to guns, while his daddy is trying to take all ours. I don't care if he gets off on breaking established law...if it sets precedent that that law is bullshit.
Hunter is getting upper tier service, no fucking way will he be permitted to contest for 2A in the court of law.
They will settle him quietly well before the 2A is questioned. "Rules for thee, but not for me" style.