Will Baude

Uh...

I don't know.

I think the issue of to what extent race taints the use of historical evidence to do things the justices want to do or don't want to do is not a place where they're at their best intellectually.

Let's just say that.

Right, if you've been convicted of a drug felony, then you're already separately barred by the Felon in Possession Clause, which is a part of the statute.

But this is just, like, if they can show that you are a user, then you can be convicted.

This statute has also gotten a little narrower over time.

My understanding is the United States doesn't bring prosecutions under the addicted to prong for fear that would trigger the, like, status-based crime problem.

Mm.

But suppose you are a drug addict who's a clean drug addict.

Like, you know, you don't do drugs because you were addicted to them, but you're like, you know, addiction is a lifelong problem.

Now you want to have a gun.

I think even the United States agrees you can have a gun.

Like if you've forsworn drugs, don't have any drugs, the fact that you're like addicted to them is not a reason to stop you from having them.

But the point is they think it's the using.

And then even at least in the briefing now, they seem to concede they have to show that you're a habitual user, which I don't think has always been the United States' position.

I remember a case when I was clerking anyway where somebody was convicted under this.

Basically, it's just like they found some meth in his trailer and they found a gun.

And at the time, everybody thought like, you know, meth plus gun equals conviction, even if you're not a felon, even if you have no conviction.

Right.