Com. v. Adames, A.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that § 922(g)(3) was unconstitutional as applied because the government “was not required to convince a jury that Daniels was presently or even regularly intoxicated at the time of arrest”
• noting that even after the defendant’s successful as-applied constitutional challenge to § 922(g)(3), the government remained free to retry the case
• concluding that § 922(g)(3) was unconstitutional as applied
• leaving open whether § 922(g)(3) is constitutional as applied to some marijuana users
• leaving open whether § 922(g)(3) is constitutional as applied to some marijuana users
• “[W]e leave open the possibility that, for example, a heavy user of methamphetamine could potentially be disarmed because of his regular use of a drug causing erratic behavior . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).