After the McDonald v. Chicago SCOTUS decision, I caught an Alan Gottlieb interview in a podcast or a radio show where he admonished about the dangers of people inundating the courts with silly lawsuits based both on Heller and McDonald. He also warned us about the possible misuses by defense lawyers on both cases and the unintended consequences. One already popped out: U.S. v. Yancey.
Mathew Yancey was arrested and charged with possession of firearm as an unlawful user of marijuana. He pleaded guilty, was convicted but appealed saying that it violated his the Second Amendment Rights as interpreted in District of Columbia v. Heller.
The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, heard the appeal and affirmed the conviction. And in the decision, the judges added this little tidbit of interpretation.
We have already concluded, based on our understanding of Heller and McDonald, that some categorical firearms bans are permissible.
I have not finished digesting the whole decision, but that sentence alone made my day go a bit sour. I am not a lawyer no matter how many times I stayed at the Holiday Inn, but my reading of this is not good and I think the legal consequences may come back to haunt us.
If so, to the pot smoking idiot, I wish to express my hope that the nightly colon exams courtesy of his fellow inmates while he reconsiders the virtues of being a stoner.