Will Baude

So I assume when we get to argument, Justice Barrett will say something like, well, look, obviously you can, you know, drinking is not the same thing as smoking pot and a drunkard is not the same thing as a regular user who's not an addict or however we want to get into that.

But surely these examples show that it's legitimate under the police power for the legislature to regulate the connection between intoxicating substances and firearms in a reasonable way.

And this is a reasonable way.

The government also stresses, interestingly, that they say this is not a permanent ban because one of the concerns in these cases is always like, is this a permanent forfeiture of the right to keep and bear arms or is it temporary?

And they say, look, it's temporary because anytime you stop using, you can give up your habitual use, then you can have your gun back.

It's true.

And so it might be, you know, if you were a regular user and you were picked up with a firearm, you should probably have decided to quit yesterday and then say, you know, I'm not a habitual user anymore.

So can I ask you a crimpro question about this?

So this case arises out of a criminal conviction, right?

The other case, Wolford v. Lopez, is like a lawsuit against the government trying to stop them enforcing the law.

This is like, I've been convicted.

I want my conviction overturned.

Shouldn't it be the case that on review of the Constitution out of a criminal conviction, you can only look at the facts that are like...

admitted by the defendant, charged in the indictment, or proved to the jury?

Like, to try to defend the conviction on the ground, isn't it almost, like, inappropriate for the government to bring up facts that are outside the criminal record in a...

Right.

But, I mean, how could it even be at all relevant to the appeal?

But if it wasn't, like, if it wasn't found by the jury, for instance.

All right, so I bring this up also because I feel like it could actually be relevant to the rule and the disposition of the case, right?

So if the court wants to say something like,