The three indictment counts all relate to a gun purchase: One count of false statement in the purchase of a firearm; one count of false statement related to information required to be kept by a federal firearms licensed dealer; and one count of possession of a firearm by a person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance.
And that’s not even to discuss whether his blatant influence peddling was merely unethical or, instead, actually illegal. Now, back to the actual indictments at hand. At first glance, the most serious one seems to be possession of a firearm by an illegal-drug addict. The federal provision at issue is 18 U.S.C. § 922, which originally was designed as a tool against gun violence in furtherance of major illegal drug trafficking. If that were indeed its only application, it would be not just legitimate but wise.
As I have argued for well over a decade, 922 as often applied, and perhaps on its very face as written, is an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Various federal district courts over the years have suggested that the provision is constitutionally suspect, and the Supreme Court in 2019 already narrowed the clause’s reach. Then, just last month, the New Orleans-based U.S.