They also said the Justice Department makes a “startling and dangerous contention” that, because the plaintiffs have possessed cannabis multiple times, those would-be misdemeanor offenses would rise to a felony justifying the loss of Second Amendment rights—even though they haven’t been prosecuted for the offenses.
“Essentially, the Appellees invite the Court to categorize [the plaintiffs] as having been arrested, prosecuted, and convicted of a crime even if none of that has occurred,” it says. “Beyond being completely anti-textual, this argument should be frightening to anyone concerned with basic due process and the protections of law.”
For some reason, this reminds me of an episode of Weeds that came out… oh, 15-20 years ago?
NANCY
I’m glad you like it. So, here’s my final pitch, guys. The clubs are fun and everything, but with me, you get great shit right here in town. I know what you like, and I make sure it’s there when you want it so you don’t have to schlepp into the city. But most of all, I don’t xerox your driver’s license and put your name in a State controlled data bank.
DOUG
What? I’m in a data bank?
NANCY
You sure are. Accessible to anyone with a computer. So when your wives find out and divorce you, they’ll get custody of the children because their overpriced attorneys will be able to prove that you’re all nothing but a bunch of irresponsible potheads who can’t be trusted.