- Messages
- 17,471
- Reactions
- 36,484
Gun came from Oregon, Wisconsin. ;-) (there is also an Oregon, IL)
USA v Blair Cook
USA v Blair Cook
Federal law prohibits any "unlawful user" of marijuana from possessing a firearm. "Unlawful user" is unconstitutionally vague, says criminal defendant who admits to smoking daily for the past decade. Perhaps in some hypothetical scenarios, says Seventh Circuit, but your conduct "undoubtedly falls within the obvious core" of the statute. As a consolation prize, however, the court "commends everyone involved in the briefing and arguing of this case" (along with the district-court judges) for a job well done.
ROVNER, Circuit Judge. A jury convicted Blair Cook of being an unlawful user of a controlled substance (marijuana) in possession of a firearm. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). Cook appeals his conviction, contending that the statute underlying his conviction is facially vague, that it improperly limits his Second Amendment right to possess a firearm, and that the 2 No. 18-1343 district court did not properly instruct the jury as to who constitutes an unlawful user of a controlled substance. We affirm Cook's conviction.
an "unlawful user" of marijuana, in violation of section 922(g)(3), and making a false statement (that he was not an unlawful user of marijuana) on the ATF form in connection with his purchase of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A).
The district court subsequently gave the following instruction to the jury as to who constitutes an "unlawful user" of marijuana: The defendant was an unlawful user of marijuana if he used marijuana on a regular and ongoing basis for a period of time that began 4 No. 18-1343 before and continued through the date of the charged offense. The government is not required to prove that the defendant was under the influence of marijuana when he filled out the Firearms Transaction Record or when he possessed the firearm. The government is not required to prove that the defendant used marijuana on any particular day, or within a certain number of days of when he committed the charged offenses.
Cook challenges his conviction pursuant to this statute on three grounds: (1) the statute is facially vague as to who constitutes an "unlawful user" of a controlled substance; (2) the statute violates his Second Amendment right to possess a firearm; and (3) the jury instruction defining "unlawful user" was inadequate. For the reasons that follow, we find none of these arguments to be persuasive.
