## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 09

- 1138 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. M AT T HE W Y ANCEY, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the Western Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 08- cr -00103

—Barb ara B. C rab b , Judge .
A RGUED A UGUS T 4, 2009

— D ECIDED S EP TE MBE R 3, 2010

Befo re F LA UM, K ANN E , a nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges . P ER C UR I AM . M at thew Y ancey ple aded gui l ty to posse ss i nga fi r ea r m a s anunl awfulus ero fma rij ua na but res e r v e d the r i g htt o a r g ue o n a pp e a l tha tthe o ff e nse o fc o nv i ct i o n, 1 8 U. S
. C. § 9 22 ( g ) ( 3) , v i o l at es the S ec o nd Am en dm en t as i nt er pr et ed i n D i s t r i ctof Col um b i a v. H eller, 12 8 S
. Ct
. 2 783 ( 20 08 )
. W e co nc l ude tha t th e st atut e i s co ns ti tu ti o na l a nd a ffi r m Ya nc ey ’ s co nv i ct i o n. Pol i ce offi cer s executed an ar re st w ar ra nt f or Y an c ey i n J une 200 8. Yancey, wh o w as 18 at the t i m e, was2 N o. 09

- 1138

c a r r y i n ga l o a d e d p i s t o l a n d 0. 7 g r a ms o fma r ij u a n a . He c on fes se d t h at h e h ad be en sm ok in g m ar ij u an a d aily sin c e a ge 16 . A rre st s f or p os se ss ion of m ar ij u an a in 20 06 a nd a g ain i n 2 00 8 co r r o bo r at e th i s admi ss i o n. A g r a nd j ur y c ha rg ed Yanc e y wi th v i o l a t i ng1 8 U. S
. C. § 9 22 (g) ( 3) , w hi ch m ake s i t a f el ony f or a perso n “w ho is an unl aw ful usero fo r add i cted t o any c ontr ol l ed substa nce” t o posse ss a gu n . A n “unl aw ful user ” i s s om eone, l i ke Y ancey, wh o re gul ar l y ingest s co ntro l l ed subst an ce s i n a m an ne r exce pt as pr es cr ibe d b y a phy si ci an . See 27 C .F.R . § 4 7 8 .11 ; U nited Sta tes v. B urch a rd, 58 0 F.3 d 34 1, 35 2 (6 th C ir. 20 09 ); U ni t ed State s v. Pat t e rs on , 43 1 F. 3d 832, 83 9 ( 5th Ci r. 20 05)
. Yancey conceded the vi ol ati o n b utmove d t o di smi ss the i ndi ct m en t o n the g r o und tha tthe s t a t ut e v i o l a t e s the S e c o nd Amen dme nt
. Yancey c i t e d H eller, whi chho l ds th at th e S ec o nd Am en dm en t p reserves an ind ivi d ua l’ s ri gh t to keep han d gu ns f or self

d efe n se . 128 S
. C t
. a t 2 82 1-2 2; U ni t e d S t at e s v. Jac ks on, 55 5 F .3d 63 5, 63 6 (7 th C ir.), cert. denied , 130 S. Ct
. 147 (2009). A lth ou gh Y an c ey w as ca rry in g h is gu n ou ts id e h is hom e, he ar gued th at Hellers hi el ds hi m fr o m pr o se cut i o n b e c a u s e h e i s n o ta fe l o n a n d th e wea po n i s c o mm o npl ac e. And, Ya nc eyc o nt i nue d, the g overnm en t w ou ld ne ed , bu t cou ld not articu late, a com p ell ing in teres t t o ju s t i fy d isp os se ss in g h ab itu al d ru g u se rs of th eir g uns . The di st r i ct cou r t den i ed th e m o ti o n, c o nc l udi ng th atno th i ngi n Heller prev en ts the g ove rnm ent fro m cri m i nalizing fi re ar m poss ess i on byso m eone wh o habi tu ally u se s d ru g s i l leg ally . Ya n c ey th en en te re d a c on d iti onalguil ty ple a and w as sente nced to 21 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent a nd 3 yea rs ’ superv i sed r el eas e.N o. 09

- 1138 3 Yancey’ s s ol e a rgum ent on ap peal i s that the di str i ct co ur t sh o ul d ha ve di smi ss ed th e i ndi ct m en t o n the gr ound that § 922 ( g) ( 3) vi ol ate s the S eco nd A m endm ent. W e r evi ew the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s leg alco ncl usi on de no vo. See U nited Sta tes v. G reve, 490 F.3d 566, 570 (7th C ir. 2007). T his cou rt has not yet an alyzed § 9 22(g)(3) after Heller, an d no o therci rcui t has publi shed an o pini on deci d i ng i ts c on st itu tio n alit y. O u r fu ll c ou rt, h ow ev er , d i d r e c en tly e v a l ua t e wh e the r the Co ns t i t ut i o n pe r mi t s Co ng r e s s to bartho se convi cted o fdom est i c vi ol ence cri m es fro m p os se ss in g fire ar m s, see 18 U
. S
. C
. § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 9 ) , a n d we c on c lu d e d th at it d oe s. See U nited Sta tes v. Sk o ien , N o. 08

- 3770 , 20 10 W L 2735747, at* 3 ( 7th Ci r. J uly 13, 20 10) (en ban c). I n c o n s i d e r i n gth e c o n st i t u t i o n a l i t y o f§ 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 3 ) , we b eg in w ith th e Su p re m e C ou rt ’s re c en t d ec isio n s in H ellera nd M cDonal d v
. Ci ty of Chi cago , 13 0 S. Ct 30 20 ( 20 10 )
. Al th o ug h the Co ur t co nc l ude d that t he S ec o nd A m endm ent pr es er ves “the i nd i vi du alr i ght t o posse ss and carr y weapons i n case o f co nfr ontat i on, ” Heller, 12 8 S. Ct. at27 97, thatr i ght is n ot u n l i m i ted. The Courthas si nce adm oni shed that Heller“di d not ca st d oubt on su chl o ng st an di ngr egul at o r y meas ur es a s ‘ pr o hibi ti o ns on th e po ss es sio n of fi re ar m s by felo n s an d t h e m en ta lly i l l
. ’ ” M cD ona ld, 13 0 S
. Ct. at30 47 ( quoti ng Heller, 128 S. Ct. a t 2 81 6-1 7). H eller ’ s f o o t no t e 2 6 un de r s c o r e s tha t a tl eas t th es e tw o c at eg or ica l b an s are “p re su m p tiv ely la w fu l.” H eller, 12 8 S . C t. at 2817n. 26. The Courtdecl i ned to fur the r e l a b o r a t e o n the ful l e xt e nto fthe S e c o nd Amen dm ent’ s r each, not i ng tha t “ ther e wil l be ti m e en ou gh to e xp o un d up o n the hi s t o r i c a l j us t i fi c a t i o ns f o r the exce p-4 N o. 09

- 1138 t i o n s w e h a v e me n t i o n e d i fa n d w h e n th o s e e xc e pti ons com e be f or e us. ” Id. a t2 8 2 1
. Wi th th i s c as e , we m ov e b ey on d th o s e e x c ep tio n s t o a d iffer en t, bu t e q u ally defen sibl e, c at eg o r i ca l b an . W e ha ve alread y con clud ed , bas ed on ou r un d erstan d ing of H ellera n d M cDonal d, thatso m e ca teg or i cal fi re ar m s ba ns ar e per m i ssibl e; Congr ess i s not l i m i ted to ca se -b y-c as e e x c lu sio n s. Sk o ien , 20 10 W L 2735747, at* 3. And w e ha ve al r ea dy co ns i der ed an d r ej ec te d the noti on that o nl y e xcl usi ons i n exi ste n c e at the ti m e o f th e Se c on d A m en d m en t’s r a t i fica tio n are p er m itt ed
. Id
. It w as n otu n til 19 68 t h at C on gr es s b ar re d th e m en ta lly i l l fro m poss ess i ng g uns, and i t was i n that sam e l egi sl ati on that habi tualdrug abuser s were prohibi ted fro m h av in g g u n s. See Gu n Contro l A ct o f19 68, Pub. L. 90

- 618, § 1 02, 82 S tat
. 12 13, 12 20. Bu t though Congr ess m ay excl ud e ce rt ai n cate gor i es ofpers on s f ro m fi re ar m poss ess i on, the excl usi on m ust be m or e than m er el y “ ra ti onal, ” Heller, 12 8 S
. Ct. a t 2 817 n . 2 7, a n d mu s twi th s t a n d “ s o me f o r m o fs t r o n gs h o wi ng, ” Sk o ien , 2010 W L 27357 47, at * 3. (W e h a v e t hu s far, like th e Su p re m e C ou rt, d ec lin ed to w ad e in to th e “ ‘lev els of scr uti n y’ q uagm i re , ” i d. ; see also Heller, 12 8 S
. Ct. at 2817( str i ki ng down D. C.’ s l aw “[ u]nde r any l eve l o f sc r ut i ny ”) )
. I n b o th Skoi e n a nd Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , w e evaluat ed w hetherthe gov ernm ent had m ade a str ong showing that the c hal l enged s ub sect i on o f§ 922( g) w as subst an ti al l y r el ate d to an i m port ant g ove rnm ental ob j ec tiv e. S e eUn i t e d S t at e s v . Wi l l i a ms , N o. 09

- 3174, 20 10 W L 30354 83, at* 6 ( 7th Ci r. A ug. 5, 20 10) ; S k o ien , 20 10N o. 09

- 1138 5 W L 2735747, at* 3. W e a pp l y th at s am e a nal yti calfra m ew o r k here, and again reserve th e qu estion w he th er a diff er ent k i nd o ffi re ar m r egul ati on m i ght r equi re a d iffer en t a p p ro ac h
. S e eWi l l i a ms , 20 10 W L 30354 83, at* 6. Congre ss enacte d the e xcl usi ons in § 922( g) to ke ep gu n s o u t o ft h e h an d s o f p re su m p tiv ely risk y p eo p le. See D icke rs on v. N ew B anner Ins t. , Inc. , 460 U .S. 10 3, 11 2 n .6 (19 83 ); s e eal s o S. R EP . N O . 90

- 15 01 , a t 22 (196 8) ( “T he r ea dy av ai l ab i l i ty, that i s, the e as e wi thwhi cha ny per s o n c a n a n o n y mo u s l y a c q u i r e fi r e a r ms ( i n c l u d i ng cri m i nal s, j uveni l es w ithout the c onse nt o fthei r parents or guar dians, nar cot i c addict s, m entaldefecti ves, ar m ed gr ou p s w h o w ou ld su p p lan t d u ly c on st itu te d p u b lic au th o r itie s, an d ot h er s w h os e p os se ss ion of firea rm s is si m i l ar l y c ontr ar y t o the p u b li c i nter est ) i s a m att ero f ser i ous nat i onalco ncer n. ”)
. T h e bro ad obj ecti ve of § 9 22( g)

— supp re ssi ng ar m ed vi ol ence

— i s without doubt an im p or ta n t o n e, s e eWi l l i a ms , 20 10 W L 30354 83, at* 6, Sk o ien , 2 01 0 W L 2 735747, a t * 3, a nd the g o ve r nm en t co nt en ds th atk ee pi ngg uns a way fr o m habi tu aldr ug abuser s i s s ubstanti al l y r ela te d to thatgo al
. A s the go ve r nme nt no t e s , man y s t a t e s ha v e r e s t r i c t e d the r i ght o f ha bitua l d rug a b u s e rs or al coh oli cs to p ossess or carry fire ar m s. See A LA . C OD E § 1 3A -11

- 7 2 (b ); A RK . C OD E A NN . § 5 -73 -309(7), (8); C AL . P ENAL C OD E § 1 20 21 (a)( 1); C OLO . R EV . S T AT . § 1 8-1 2

- 2 0 3(e ), (f); D EL . C OD E A NN . ti t. 11 , § 1 44 8(a )(3) ; D .C . C OD E § 22-4503 (a)( 4); F LA . S T AT . § 790.25(2)(b) (1); G A . C OD E A NN . § 16- 11- 129(2)(f), ( i ), (j ); H AW . R EV . S T AT . § 134-7(c)(1); I DA H O C OD E A NN . § 18- 3302 (1)( e); 720 I LCS 5/ 24 -3.1 (a)( 3); I ND . C OD E § 35-47-1-7(5); K AN . S T AT . A NN . § 21-4204 (a)( 1); K Y . R EV . S T AT . A NN .6 N o. 09

- 1138 § 237.110(4)(d), (e); M D . C OD E A NN ., Publi c S afety, 5- 133(b)(4), ( 5); M ASS . G EN . L AW S ch
. 140, § 129B (1 )( iv); M I NN . S T AT . § 624.713(10)(i ii ); M O . R EV . S T AT . § 571.070(1)(1); N EV . R EV . S T AT . § 202. 360(1)(c); N. H. R EV . S T AT . A NN . § 159:3(b)( 3); N
. J. S T AT . A NN . § 2C :5 8 -3(c)(2); N .C . G EN . S T AT . § 14-404(c)(3); O H I O R EV . C OD E A NN . § 2923
. 13( A ) ( 4) ; R.I. G EN . L AW S § 11- 47- 6; S
. C. C OD E A NN . § 16-23-30(A )( 1); S
. D. C ODI FIED L AW S § 23-7-7.1( 3); W. V A . C OD E § 61-7-7(2), (3). These s ta tu tes dem onst ra te that Con g r es s was no t al o ne i n c o nc l udi ng thathabi tu aldr ug ab u se rs are u n fit t o p o s s e s s firea rm s. T h e s ta te p ro h ibiti o ns , mor eo ve r, a r e m er el y the l at est inca r na ti o n o fthe st at es ’ unb r o k enhi st o r y o fr egul at i ngthe po ss es si on a nd us e offi r e a r ms da t i ngb a c kt o the t i me o fthe a men dm en t’s rat ifica tio n . Se ege ne r al l y S a ulCo r ne l l & N athan D eD in o, A We l l

- Reg ul at e d Right : TheEar l y Am e r i ca n Origi ns of Gun Cont r ol , 73 F ORDH A M L. R EV . 48 7, 502 ( 2004 )
. That so m e of th es e res tr ict ion s are en tr en c h ed su p p or ts t h eir c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y : “ T h i s c o u r th a s r e p e a t e d l y l ai d d o wn th e p rin c ip le t h at a c on te m p or an eo u s le gis lat ive ex p os iti on o fthe Consti tuti on, wh en t h e f ounders ofo ur g over n m en t a n d fram er s o f ou r C on st itu t i o n w er e a c tiv ely par ti ci pat i ngi n pub l i c aff ai r s, a cquie sc ed i n f o r a l o ng te rm of yea rs , fix es th e con st ru c tio n to b e give n it s p r o visi ons. ” M yers v . U nited Sta tes , 272 U
. S. 52, 175 (1926 ). K ee p i ng g uns aw ay f ro m habi tualdrug abuser s is an al o g o us t o di sa r m ing f el o ns . W e ha ve a l r ea dy co nc lu d ed th at b a rrin g fe lon s fro m firea rm p os se ss ion is c on st itu tio n al. S e eWi l l i a ms , 20 10 W L 30 35 483, at* 7. Though schol ar s co nti nue to de b ate the evi dence of hi sto ri calpre cedent f orprohibi ti ng cr i m i nal s fro mN o. 09

- 1138 7

c ar ry in g a rm s, co m pa re Sk o ien , 20 10 W L 2735 747, at *2; Don B . K at es , Jr., H andg un P r ohi b i t i on and t heO r igi nal M e ani ng o f t h eS e c o n d A me n d me nt, 82 M I CH . L. R EV . 20 4, 26 6 ( 1983 ) ( “F el o ns s i m pl y di d no t f al l wi th i n the ben efi ts o fthe c om m on la w righ t t o p os se ss arm s.” ), w ith Sk o ien , 20 10 W L 27357 47, a t *11 ( Sykes, J
. , dissen ting); C. K evin M arsh all, Why C a n’t M ar t ha S t e wartHavea Gun? , 32 H ARV . J
. L. & P UB . P OL ’ Y 695, 72 8- 35 ( 2009 ), i t ca nnot be di sputed that sta tes were re gul ati ng fi re ar m s a s e ar l y a s th e ninete en th ce n tu ry . Se eSt at ev. Hogan , 58 N
. E. 572, 218- 19 ( Ohi o 1 90 0) (op in i ngtha t pr o hibi ti o n o n t r amps b ea r i ng ar m s w as co n st itu tio n al); S t at ev . Shel by, 2 S. W
. 46 8, 46 9 ( M o. 18 86) ( up hol ding l aw proh ibi ti ng i ntoxi cate d p er so n s fro m ca rry in g fire ar m s); s e eal s o Ro berts on v. B aldw in , 16 5 U.S
. 27 5, 28 1- 82 ( 1897 ) ( noti n g that Bil l o f Rights c odi fi ed libe rt i es i nheri ted fro m “o ur Engl i sh ancest or s” w i th well

- re cogni zed exce pt ions). W hatev er th e pedi g r ee o fthe r ul e ag ains t ev ennonvi o l en t f el o ns posse ssi ng weapons ( w hi ch w as c od ifi ed i n federa l l aw in 1938) , m ostscho l ar s o fthe Se cond A m endm ent a gr ee that the r i ght t o bearar m s was tie d to the c oncept of a vi r tu o us c i ti ze nr y a nd tha t, a cc o r di ng l y, the g o ve r nm ent c oul d disa rm “un virtuous c i ti zens. ” U nited Sta tes v. Vongx ay, 5 94 F
. 3d 11 11 , 1 11 8 ( 9th Ci r . 2 01 0) ( ci ting Glenn Harl an Reyn old s, A Cri t i ca l Gui det o theSe co nd Am e ndment, 62 T EN N . L. R EV . 4 6 1 , 4 80 ( 19 9 5 ) , a nd Do n B. K at es , Jr., The Se co nd Am e ndment : A D i al o gue, L AW & C ON T E MP . P ROBS ., W i nter19 86, at 14 3, 14 6 (1 98 6)), pe t i t i on f orc e r t
. f

i l e d (Ju ly 1 3, 20 10 ) (N o. 10

- 5 4 2 3 ); T HO M AS M. C OO LEY, A T R EA T I S E ON C O N STITUT IONAL L IMITA TION S 29 ( Bo st o n, Li tt l e Br o wn & Co. 1 86 8) ( ex pl aini ngtha t co n-8 N o. 09

- 1138 st i tu ti o ns pr o te ctr i g ht s f o r “the Peo pl e” exc l udi ng, a m o ng ot h er s, “t h e id iot, th e lu n at ic, an d th e fe lon ”); see also Sk o ien , 201 0 W L 27 35 7 4 7, a t *2. A s w e’v e e x p lain ed in a di ff er ent c onte xt, m ostfel ons ar e no n vio l ent, but som eon e w ith a felon y con vic tio n on h is rec or d is m or e li k ely than a n on felo n to enga ge i n i l l ega l and vi ol ent gun use. U ni t e d S t at e s v. La ne, 25 2 F .3 d 905, 906 (7th Cir. 2001). Thu s, wh i l e fel on- i n-pos ses si on l aw s co uld be cri ti ci zed as “wi l dl y o ve r i nc l us i ve ” f o r e nc o m pas singno nv i o l en t off enders, ev er y s tat e co urt i n the m oder n er a t o consi der the pro pri etyo fdi sar m i ng fel ons und eranal ogous sta te const i tuti onal provi si ons has co ncl ud ed that st ep to be p er m i s s i b le. A d am W in kle r, Sc r ut i nizi ng t he Se co nd Am e ndment, 10 5 M I CH . L. R EV . 68 3, 721 ( 20 07 )
. And th at reason ing ap p li es w ith eq ua l forc e t o Co ng ress’s extensi on o fthe fi re ar m s ba n to ano thercateg or y o f ha bitua l crim inals w ith § 922(g)(3)
. M or eo ve r, h ab itu al d ru g a b u s e r s, like th e m en ta lly ill, ar e m or e like ly to h av e d iff i c u lty ex er c isin g s elf-c on tr ol, m aki ng i t danger ous forthem to poss ess d eadl y fi re ar m s. I n H ell er a nd M cD ona ld, the Co ur t en do r se d the excl usi on o fthe m ental l y i l l fro m fi re ar m poss essio n as p re su m p tiv ely va lid
. M cD ona ld, 13 0 S
. Ct. at30 49; H eller, 128 S. C t. at 28 16 -17
. Fe d er al la w d id n otp ro h ibit fire arm poss ess i on bytho se adj ud i cate d m ental l y i l l o r c om m itt ed to a m en ta l ins tit u t i on u n til 19 68 , see Sk o ien , 20 10 W L 2 73 5747, a t * 2 ( ci ting Pub. L. 90

- 61 8, 82 St at. 1213 , 1 220)
. But the abse nce o fhi sto ri calst atuto rypro hibi ti ons on fi re ar m poss ess i on m ay have been the c onse quence of the f act that “i n ei ghtee nth-c entury A m er i ca, j usti ces ofthe peace w er e a uthor i zed to ‘ l ockup’ ‘ l unati cs’N o. 09

- 1138 9

w h o w er e ‘d an ge ro u s t o b e p er m itt ed to go a b ro ad .’ ” Carl ton F. W
. Lars on, Fou rExcept i ons i n S e ar ch of a Theo ry: D istri ct of Colum bia v. H ell er and Judicial I pseD ixit, 60 H AS T I NGS L
. J. 1371 , 13 77 ( 2009 ) ( ci ti ng H EN RY C ARE , E NGL I S H L I B E RT IE S, OR T HE F RE E - BORN S UB J EC T ’ S I NH ERI TANCE 32 9 (6 th ed . 177 4)); ac co r d Do n B. Kat e s & Cl a y t o n E. C ra m er , Se co nd Am e ndment Li m i t at i ons and C rim i nol ogi ca l Cons i de r at i ons , 60 H ASTING S L .J. 1 3 3 9 , 1 36 1 n .13 6; see also U ni t e d S tat e s v. Em e rs on , 27 0 F
. 3d 203, 22 6 n. 21 ( 5th Ci r . 2 00 1) ( no tingtha t “l una ti cs” a nd “ th o se o funs o und m i nd ” were h ist or i cal l y pr ohibi ted fro m fi re ar m poss essi on)
. Extending the b an to tho se w ho r egul ar l y abuse drugs m ake s par ti cul arse nse b ecause the Court has note d the s i m i l ar ity betw een the two gr oups. A few y ea r s be f o r e Con g r es s ba r r ed th e m en ta l ly i l l a nd ha bitua l d rug ab us ers from pos sessin g gun s, th e C ou rt note d that drug add i cti on i s a n i l l ness not unli ke othe r m entali l l nesse s, and that it c ou ld i n so m e ca ses b e c on tr ac t e d i n n oc en tly or in ad ve rt en tly
. Se eRob i ns on v. C alif ornia , 370 U .S. 66 0, 66 7 (1 96 2); see a l s o L i nde rv. U nited Sta tes , 2 68 U. S
. 5 , 1 8 (1925). I n Robi ns on , the Court str uck down a la w cr i m i nal i zi ng drug add i cti on, wh i ch the Court re as oned was anal ogo us to i m pri son ing s om eone f orhavi ng a com m on co l d. 370 U
. S. at 667. But eve n w hi l e r eco gni zi ng tha t a dd i cti on i s a n il lness, th e C ou rt nev erth eless recogn ized that an ad d ict’s b eha vio r c a n b e r e g u l a t e d
. J u s t a f e w mo n th s b e f o r e Con

gress ex c lu d e d b oth the m en tally il l an d dru g use rs f r o m fi r ea r m po ss es si o n, the Co ur t cl ar i fi ed th atthe Consti tuti on di d not f orbi d cri m i nal i zi ng t h e p ubl i c ac ts o fa habi tu alus er . Ra th ertha n c r i m i na l i zings ta tu s, the Court sai d, the st ate “has i m posed upon appell ant a10 N o. 09

- 1138 cri m i nal sa ncti on f orpub lic b ehavi orwh i ch m ay cre ate su b s t a nt i a l h e a l th a nd s a fe t y h a z a r ds , b o th f o r a ppel l ant a nd f or m em ber s o fthe gener alpubli c. ” P ow el l v. Texa s , 392 U .S. 51 4, 53 2 (1 96 8); s e e a l s o Un i t e d S t a t e s v. Jester, 13 9 F
. 3d 1168 , 11 70 ( 7th Ci r. 19 98) ( ci ti ng P o w ell to su p p o r t cons titution ali ty of fel on-in-p ossess ion l aw s). So , to o, w ith keepi ng fi re ar m s o ut o fthe hand s o fan habi tualdrug abuser, wh o has “ l ostthe p ow ero f se l f

- c o nt r o l wi th r e f e r e nc e t o the u s e o fc o nt r o l l e d s ubstan c e,” 27 C.F. R
. § 478.11, and w hos e po ssess ion of a fi re ar m l i kewis e pos es substanti alheal th and safety hazar d s. A s the H ouse m anage r sta ted duri ng debat e on t he l e g i s l a t i o n, “ No o ne c a n di s pu t e the ne e d t o preve nt d rug add i cts, m entali ncom petents , per sons w i th a hi sto ryo fm entaldi sturbances, and pers ons convi cted o f ce r ta i n o ff en se s, f r o m buy i ng, o wni ng, o r pos se ss i ng fi re ar m s. ” 1 14 C ONG . R EC . 21784 ( 1968 ). A m pl e a c a de mi c r e s e a r c h c o nfi r ms the c o nn e c t i on b et w ee n d ru g u se an d vio len t c rim e. Fo r ex am p le, n ea rly f our ti m es as m any a du l ts ar re ste d fo r se ri ous c ri m es had used an i l l ega l drug i n the previ ous yea r than had not. See O FFI CE OF A PPL I ED S T U DIES, S UBS TANCE A BUSE AND M ENTAL H EA LT H S ERV ICES A DM INI S T R A T I ON , I LLI CIT D R UG U S E A MONG P ERSON S A R R E S T E D F OR S ERIO U S C RI MES, NS DU H R EPORT ( 2005 ) , ava i l ab l eat http: //w w w . oas . s a mhs a . g o v/2 k 5 / a r r e s t s /a rr est s. pd f
. Other academ i c r ese ar ch dem onst ra tes a str ong connect i on b et w ee n d ru g u se a n d vio len c e. See, e.g., Carr i e B. Oser, et al., The D r ugs

— Viol e nc eNex u s A mongR u ra lFe l o ny Prob at i one rs , 24 J. I NTERPERS ONA L V IOLE NCE 1 2 8 5 , 1 2 9 8

- 9 9 ( 2 0 09) ( no ting c o nne ct i o n b etwee n i l l eg als ti m ul an t us e an d vi ol ence as w el l as eco nom i cal l y m oti vate d v iol ence byN o. 09

- 1138 11 d ru g a d d ict s); B UREAU OF J UST ICE S T AT I S T I CS, U
. S. D EP ’ T OF J US T I CE , D RUG U S E AN D D EP EN DE NCE, S TATE AND F EDERAL P RIS O N E RS, 2004, at 7 (20 07 ), avai l ab l eat ht t p: / / b j s . o j p. us d o j
. g o v / c o n t e n t / p u b / p d f/ du ds f p0 4
. pd f ( not ing that nea rl y hal fo fvi ol ent o ff enders i n sta te pri sons w er e dependent on dr ugs) ; H
. Vi rg i ni a M cCoy, et al., P erpetrators, Vict im s, a nd O bs ervers of Violenc e: Ch ronic a nd No n-C hro nic D rug Users , 16 J. I NTERPERS ONA L V I OLE NCE 890, 90 6 ( 2001 ) ( docum enti ng not abl e co nnec ti on be

t we e n c h r o n i c d r u gab u s e r s a n d v i o l e n c e ) ; R o g er H. P et er s, et al., Pre val e nc eof D SM

- I V Sub s t anceAbu s ean d D epen den ce D iso rders A m o ng P rison Inm a tes , 24 A M . J. D RUG A LCOHO L A BUS E 573, 583 (1 998) ( re port i ng tha t three

quarte rs o fstat e in m ate s hav e a hi sto ryo fsubst ance abuse) ; Lana H ar ri son & J ose ph G f ro erer , TheInt e rs e ct i on of D r ug Us ean d Cr i m i nal Be havi or : R esults f r om t he N a tio na l Ho use h o ld S urv ey o n D rug A buse, 38 C RI ME & D ELINQ UEN CY 42 2, 4 38 ( 19 92 ) ( r epo r tingtha t dr ug ab us er s ar e m o r e l i k el y t o e ng ag e i n b o th p r o per tya nd vi o l en t cr i m es )
. The se studi es ampl y demons tr ate the co nne ct i o n b etwee n c hr o ni c dr ugabu se an d v i o l en t crim e , and i ll um inate th e nex us betw een Con gress’s at te m pt to k ee p f i r ea r m s awayfr o m habi tu aldr ug abuser s a nd i ts goa l o fr educing vi ol ent c ri m e. Finally, un li ke th ose w ho h ave be en conv ic ted of a f el ony orco m m i tte d to a m entali nsti tuti on a nd so f ace a lifet im e b an , an u n law fu l d ru g u se r l i ke Y an c ey co u ld r eg ain h i s righ t to po ss es s a fi r ea r m s i m pl y b y e ndi ng hi s dr ug a b us e . I n tha t s e ns e , the r e s t r i c t i o n i n § 92 2( g) ( 3) i s f arl es s o ne r o us tha n tho se a ff ec tingfel o ns a nd the m en ta l l y i l l
. W e have obse r ve d b efo r e th atthe r e i s no12 N o. 09

- 1138 const i tuti onalpro bl em wit h separat i ng g uns and drugs. Se eJac ks on , 55 5 F
. 3d at 636. T he pro hibi ti on i n § 9 22( g) ( 3) bar s o nl y those per sons w ho a re current d r u g u sers f r o m po s s e s s i nga fi r e a r m, a nd “ [ i ] ti s o b v i o us that th e te ns es us ed th r o ug ho utTi tl e I V [ i nc l udi ng§ 9 22(g)] w er e cho sen with c ar e. ” Sc a rbo rou gh v. U nited Sta tes , 43 1 U
. S. 56 3, 57 0 ( 1977 ) ; seeal s o Unit e d S t at e s v. Jac ks on , 48 0 F. 3d 1014, 10 21 ( 9th Ci r. 20 07)
. Ever y c i rcui t t o have consi dered the questi on has dem anded thatthe habi tual ab us e be c o nt empor an eo us wi th the g un po ss es si o n. Se ePat t e rs on , 431 F .3 d at83 9; U nite d State s v. A ugusti n , 37 6 F .3d 1 3 5 , 1 39 (3d C ir. 20 04 ); U nite d State s v. Turnbul l , 34 9 F .3d 55 8, 56 1 (8 t h C i r . 200 3), vac at e d on othe rgroun ds , 543 U
. S. 10 99 ( 2005 ) ( fi nd i ng Bo o k er er ro r), reinsta ted, 41 4 F.3 d 94 2 (8 th C ir. 20 05 ); U ni t e d St at es v. Jacks on , 28 0 F.3 d 40 3, 40 6 (4 th C ir. 20 02 ); U ni t ed Sta te s v. Pur dy, 26 4 F
. 3 d 8 0 9 , 8 1 2

- 1 3 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 1 )
. T hu s the g unb a n e xt e nd s onl y so l ong as Yancey abuses drugs. I n that w ay, Yancey hi m se lfc ont ro l s hi s r i g htt o po ss es s a g un; the S ec o nd A m endm ent, however, d oes notr equi re Congr ess to al l ow him to si m ult aneous ly choos e bo th gun pos ses si on a nd drug abuse. I n s um , we fi nd that C ongr es s ac te d wi th i n c o ns ti tu
ti onalbo und s bypro hibi ti ng i l l ega l drug us er s fro m fi re ar m poss ess i on b ecause i t i s s ubstanti al l y r el ate d to th e i m po r ta ntg o ve r nm en ta l i nt er es t i n pr ev en ting vi ol ent c ri m e. A FFI RMED .
9- 3- 10