# F Merrick Garland. (He won't be going after anyone) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 19, 2022, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-merrick-garland-he-wont-be-going-after-anyone/968190 "2022-07-19T06:39:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 35
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2023, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-merrick-garland-he-wont-be-going-after-anyone/968190/681 "2023-09-16T15:46:54Z")
Okay. So I must state for the record that I don’t think the criminal justice system is helpful treatment for addicts, and I don’t think it’s a good tool to combat drug addiction. I think that having a government entity policing people’s treatment is a terrible idea for lots of reasons. But given the charges here, it seems that he is not being charged for being an addict, but for lying. What **TriPolar** posted is “using and addicted,” but does the law make a distinction between the two? If he was using drugs when he bought the gun, then (1) he lied on the form, and (2) he shouldn’t have the gun. Addiction is irrelevant — Biden may have used the word of himself, but as far as I can see this law makes no distinction between using once, recreationally, vs. being addicted. The CBC article I read ([Hunter Biden indicted on U.S. federal firearms charges, accused of lying about drug use | CBC News](https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/hunter-biden-firearms-charges-1.6966811)) notes that “a recent federal appeals court recently found the measure he was charged under unconstitutional,” which seems important. ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2023, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-merrick-garland-he-wont-be-going-after-anyone/968190/682 "2023-09-16T16:00:47Z")
> [@Dr.Drake](#): > > If he was using drugs when he bought the gun, then (1) he lied on the form, and (2) he shouldn’t have the gun. Sure, but when you say “using drugs”, are you referring to it literally. As in, he used drugs and then, while under their influence, bought a gun? Because a person who has previously used drugs, and who may use them again, can nevertheless honestly say that they aren’t using drugs when they buy a gun. Otherwise, if the lie was that he was just “a user”, but the government has no particular time or place in which they can prove that he was using (other than a general claim that he had this habit), then an argument can be made that he’s being punished for his status, as opposed to some act he did. That would be improper. > [@Dr.Drake](#): > > The CBC article I read ([Hunter Biden indicted on U.S. federal firearms charges, accused of lying about drug use | CBC News](https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/hunter-biden-firearms-charges-1.6966811)) notes that “a recent federal appeals court recently found the measure he was charged under unconstitutional,” which seems important. Being _a_ drunk or druggie is a different thing than _being_ “drunk” or “on drugs”. > [@](#): > > Title 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) bars an individual from possessing a fire- arm if he is an “unlawful user” of a controlled substance. Patrick Daniels is one such “unlawful user”—he admitted to smoking marihuana multiple days per month. But the government presented no evidence that he was intoxi- cated at the time of arrest, nor did it identify when he last had used mari- huana. Still, based on his confession to regular usage, a jury convicted Dan- iels of violating § 922(g)(3). > The question is whether Daniels’s conviction violates his right to bear arms. > > The answer depends on whether § 922(g)(3) is consistent with our nation’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation.” N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2126 (2022). > > It is a close and deeply challenging question. > > Throughout American history, laws have regulated the combination of guns and intoxicating substances. But at no point in the 18th or 19th cen- tury did the government disarm individuals who used drugs or alcohol at one time from possessing guns at another. A few states banned carrying a weapon while actively under the influence, but those statutes did not emerge until well after the Civil War. Section 922(g)(3)—the first federal law of its kind— was not enacted until 1968, nearly two centuries after the Second Amend- ment was adopted. > > In short, our history and tradition may support some limits on an intoxicated person’s right to carry a weapon, but it does not justify disarming a sober citizen based exclusively on his past drug usage. Nor do more gen- eralized traditions of disarming dangerous persons support this restriction on nonviolent drug users. > > As applied to Daniels, then, § 922(g)(3) violates the Second Amendment. We reverse the judgment of conviction and render a dismissal of the indictment. > **[22-60596-CR0.pdf](https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/22/22-60596-CR0.pdf)** > > 382.35 KB ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2023, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-merrick-garland-he-wont-be-going-after-anyone/968190/683 "2023-09-16T16:18:23Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > Sure, but when you say “using drugs”, are you referring to it literally. As in, he used drugs and then, while under their influence, bought a gun? No, of course not, because I can’t imagine that a seller would complete the sale in that case. My understanding is that the government’s perception of drug use is zero tolerance, so that anyone who has used drugs in the past is considered a drug user, much like one is either a smoker or a non-smoker but you’re not a non-smoker just because you’re between cigarettes. I’m not willing to take this position myself, but that’s how I understand theirs. I don’t know if there’s a certain amount of time of non-use that resets the system. ---
**Author:** ![Ann\_Hedonia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ann_hedonia/32/319_2.png) [@Ann\_Hedonia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ann_Hedonia)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2023, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-merrick-garland-he-wont-be-going-after-anyone/968190/684 "2023-09-16T16:49:52Z")
> [@Atamasama](#): > > > [@filmore](#): > > > > Has there been any mention of what a typical sentence is in cases which are similar to Hunter’s, where it’s just this gun charge and nothing else? > > I found this press release from a few years ago talking about people being charged solely for possessing a firearm while using illegal drugs: > > [Western District of Tennessee | Drug User in Possession of a Firearm Sentenced to Federal Prison as Part of “Operation Crime Driver” in Tipton County | United States Department of Justice](https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdtn/pr/drug-user-possession-firearm-sentenced-federal-prison-part-operation-crime-driver) > > It was a deterrence program to keep guns out of the hands of drug users. O[ne guy was sentenced to over 17 years](https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdtn/pr/tipton-county-armed-career-criminal-sentenced-over-17-years-federal-prison), but as stated, “This defendant has a long criminal history of felony convictions, and was on parole when he was found in possession of firearms and illegal narcotics. Nash has devoted his adult life to a career of repeated criminal conduct, and that prior history has finally caught up with him.” That’s different from a person like Hunter who has a clean criminal record up to this point. > > Other sentences I see are 21 months and 40 months. Again, these are people convicted solely for being in possession of a gun and being an unlawful drug user. > > A lot of these people serving long sentences were on parole or had a history of criminal behavior. So I wouldn’t expect Hunter to face sentences like they did. All but one had previous felony convictions, which is a gun crime that is typically taken seriously. The outlier was arrested in a case where both drugs and guns were found during a raid, and he faced drug charges as well as gun charges. I still haven’t found another case where the gun crime was the only crime charged. As far as I can tell, Hunter Biden has never been charged with any sort of drug offense, which may make the charge more difficult to prove. Which leads me to another point and maybe a lawyer could weigh in. In high profile cases especially, aren’t prosecutors expected to “show their work”, as it were, by pointing to other cases with similar attributes that justify their charging decision? And if this case goes to trial, isn’t it on the prosecution to prove that not only that Hunter Biden abused drugs, but that he did so in the 11 day period when he owned the gun? I don’t think claiming he was an addict would be enough because he could claim that he didn’t consider himself to be addicted at that time. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2023, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-merrick-garland-he-wont-be-going-after-anyone/968190/685 "2023-09-16T16:58:22Z")
> [@Railer13](#): > > Illegal because he was a user of illegal drugs when he possessed the gun. A more detailed source confirms what you say. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2023, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-merrick-garland-he-wont-be-going-after-anyone/968190/686 "2023-09-16T17:37:31Z")
> [@Ann\_Hedonia](#): > > All but one had previous felony convictions, which is a gun crime that is typically taken seriously. You’re just repeating what I already said. This is the closest I could find, but Hunter’s case is still very different. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Librarian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_librarian/32/402_2.png) [@The\_Librarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Librarian)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2024, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-merrick-garland-he-wont-be-going-after-anyone/968190/687 "2024-01-16T07:13:48Z")
And it is official: Republican primary voters rather see Garland go to jail than Trump. He fucked the pooch by being so fucking slow and he and Smith will pay with their heads. If your opponent’s only hope is to delay the courts until the next election it doesn’t pay to be thorough: it pays to be fast. Your only hope is that the hamberders get him before the MAGA’s anoint him their god empower. But please carry on with the fart threads. That will be your goddamn president for life unless you fucking do something about it. Your daddy Garland is not coming to save you: He’s too fucking late. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2024, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-merrick-garland-he-wont-be-going-after-anyone/968190/688 "2024-01-16T07:21:02Z")
I’ve heard of calling an election before the polls close, but calling it ten months before the polls open is a new one on me. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Librarian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_librarian/32/402_2.png) [@The\_Librarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Librarian)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2024, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-merrick-garland-he-wont-be-going-after-anyone/968190/689 "2024-01-16T07:23:11Z")
Not calling anything: fearing. ---
**Author:** ![not\_what\_you\_d\_expect](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_what_you_d_expect/32/3246_2.png) [@not\_what\_you\_d\_expect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_what_you_d_expect)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2024, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-merrick-garland-he-wont-be-going-after-anyone/968190/690 "2024-01-16T07:33:17Z")
I’m quite fearful myself. I heard someone on the news tonight talking about the different cases against trump and in his opinion, the best case is the one that judge cannon is slow walking so there’s no chance it’ll be heard before the election and if trump wins, it won’t be heard at all. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2024, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-merrick-garland-he-wont-be-going-after-anyone/968190/691 "2024-01-16T08:00:25Z")
> [@The\_Librarian](#): > > And it is official: Republican primary voters rather see Garland go to jail than Trump. They’re morons, what did you expect?! 😆 ---
**Author:** ![The\_Librarian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_librarian/32/402_2.png) [@The\_Librarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Librarian)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2024, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-merrick-garland-he-wont-be-going-after-anyone/968190/692 "2024-01-16T08:10:34Z")
Last time I checked morons got 1 vote, same as in town. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2024, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-merrick-garland-he-wont-be-going-after-anyone/968190/693 "2024-01-16T08:18:59Z")
> [@The\_Librarian](#): > > Your only hope is that the hamberders get him before the MAGA’s anoint him their god empower. I’m sure you meant _god emperor_, but I like what you typed! ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2024, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-merrick-garland-he-wont-be-going-after-anyone/968190/694 "2024-01-16T17:58:12Z")
> [@The\_Librarian](#): > > That will be your goddamn president for life unless you fucking do something about it. I’m open to suggestions. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2024, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-merrick-garland-he-wont-be-going-after-anyone/968190/695 "2024-01-16T18:14:38Z")
I think the suggestion is that had he been charged earlier, the various trials would be over by now and he would be behind bars, making an election run difficult bordering on impossible. Of course, the flip side to that is that it doesn’t matter if one person thinks he’s “obviously” guilty and a trial (and subsequent appeals) would somehow speedily be resolved. The fact it took so long for the charges to be brought up in Georgia (Garland wouldn’t even be involved in this one) and in New York for the shady business dealings and the pending cases of dozens of Jan 6 defendants should have been indicative of the falsity of that position. Over here in the real world, it takes time to collect evidence and build a sufficient case before you formally make these types of charges and make them stick. But some people would rather their unrealistic scapegoat than hard reality ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2024, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-merrick-garland-he-wont-be-going-after-anyone/968190/696 "2024-01-16T18:30:52Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > The fact it took so long for the charges to be brought up in Georgia (Garland wouldn’t even be involved in this one) and in New York for the shady business dealings and the pending cases of dozens of Jan 6 defendants should have been indicative of the falsity of that position. Over here in the real world, it takes time to collect evidence and build a sufficient case before you formally make these types of charges and make them stick. Nope nuh-uh it’s 100% because people are feckless and not trying. Nothing will ever change that position. I will say that when **The Librarian** is saying that it’s over and we’re doomed, that helps ease my worries quite a bit. It’s like when Skip Bayless says your team sucks. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2024, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-merrick-garland-he-wont-be-going-after-anyone/968190/697 "2024-01-16T19:20:25Z")
> [@The\_Librarian](#): > > But please carry on with the fart threads. Better than the circular firing squads. Although, when I see a poster attacking Democrats but never Republicans, I begin to wonder about their preferences. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2024, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-merrick-garland-he-wont-be-going-after-anyone/968190/698 "2024-01-16T22:15:26Z")
> ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2024, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-merrick-garland-he-wont-be-going-after-anyone/968190/699 "2024-01-16T22:45:52Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > Over here in the real world, it takes time to collect evidence and build a sufficient case before you formally make these types of charges and make them stick. Especially if you wait for the Jan. 6 Commitee to do all their work, hold their hearings, assemble their findings and make their case before you think about an investigation. Jeebus, the deal unfolded before our eyes, and the DOJ wasted time, this is a fact. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2024, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-merrick-garland-he-wont-be-going-after-anyone/968190/700 "2024-01-16T22:47:00Z")
There’s a difference between some time wasted and “OMG, he would have been in prison by now”, which is essentially the claim [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-merrick-garland-he-wont-be-going-after-anyone/968190.md?page=34) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-merrick-garland-he-wont-be-going-after-anyone/968190.md?page=36)