To be clear, the gun charge is actually a drug charge: it’s illegal to own a firearm if you ever use an illegal drug, which was a racist law (1968 Gun Control Act) put in place as a way to go after groups like the Black Panthers, as well as anti-war groups during Vietnam.
Without them knowing that he had used drugs, it would not have been illegal for him to possess the gun.
In fact, a federal judge just ruled that that particular prohibition is unconstitutional on the grounds that there was no ‘historical precedent’ for it, which is the new test under Bruen.
To be clear, the gun charge is actually a drug charge: it’s illegal to own a firearm if you ever use an illegal drug, which was a racist law (1968 Gun Control Act) put in place as a way to go after groups like the Black Panthers, as well as anti-war groups during Vietnam.
Without them knowing that he had used drugs, it would not have been illegal for him to possess the gun.
In fact, a federal judge just ruled that that particular prohibition is unconstitutional on the grounds that there was no ‘historical precedent’ for it, which is the new test under Bruen.
Wild, thanks for the context! Seems like the kind of thing that should be more widely included alongside the reporting on his charges/pleading IMO.