A federal appeals court in the Eighth Circuit upheld the conviction of Marcus Baxter for possessing a firearm as an unlawful drug user, ruling that the charge aligns with the Second Amendment. The decision came in United States v. Baxter, decided on July 15, 2026. Baxter, a member of the Strap gang in Des Moines, Iowa, was involved in a violent confrontation with members of the C-Block gang on May 21, 2023. During the altercation, a bystander alerted law enforcement that Baxter had a gun. Officers subsequently arrested him and discovered a loaded pistol and a baggie of marijuana on his person. A urine test confirmed the presence of THC or marijuana metabolites. The court determined that Baxter’s marijuana use posed a credible threat to public safety, thereby satisfying the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). The court’s reasoning drew upon the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in U.S. v. Hemani, which left open the question of whether prosecutors could prove that a defendant’s drug use presents a specific danger. Judge Bobby Shepherd, joined by Judges James Loken, emphasized that the key factor was whether the defendant’s conduct was analogous to historically regulated behavior, such as using firearms to "terrify the people." The court noted that Baxter had begun using marijuana at age 13 and used it regularly, with evidence suggesting a link between chronic cannabis use and increased aggression and violence. The court also cited testimony from Dr. Huestis, a toxicology expert, who testified that marijuana use can contribute to behavioral changes that increase the risk of harm. The ruling reflects a broader tension between the Second Amendment and drug-related firearm restrictions. While the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) affirmed an individual right to bear arms, subsequent cases have continued to refine the boundaries of that right. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), the Court established a framework requiring states to demonstrate that firearm regulations are rooted in historical traditions of firearm control. This standard has influenced lower courts, including the Eighth Circuit, which evaluated whether Baxter’s conduct fell within the scope of permissible regulation. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has also grappled with the implications of Heller on state-level gun policies. In Wolford v. Lopez (2026), the Court ruled that Hawaii could not presumptuously bar firearms from private property, though landowners could still impose restrictions through signage. This decision underscored the Court’s willingness to strike down broad restrictions but also highlighted the limitations of its authority in shaping practical outcomes. Similarly, the Hemani ruling left unresolved questions about the extent to which drug use alone can justify firearm disqualification, leaving room for lower courts to interpret the law based on individual circumstances. In parallel developments, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently invalidated New Jersey’s ban on AR-15 rifles and high-capacity magazines, ruling that the restrictions violated the Second Amendment. The 10-5 decision, authored by Judge Arianna Freeman, argued that the state’s definition of "assault weapons" and "high-capacity magazines" lacked sufficient historical grounding. The court rejected New Jersey’s reliance on outdated regulations, such as those targeting Bowie knives, as irrelevant to modern firearm control. Despite the state’s argument that these weapons played a role in mass shootings, the court maintained that the Second Amendment protects all types of firearms unless they meet a specific historical criterion for regulation. The decision has intensified debate over the scope of the Second Amendment and the balance between public safety and individual rights. New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport criticized the ruling, arguing that the state had acted responsibly in addressing gun violence. Meanwhile, gun rights advocates hailed the decision as a major victory, emphasizing that the ruling aligns with the Supreme Court’s evolving interpretation of the Second Amendment. The outcome also sets the stage for upcoming Supreme Court hearings on similar state-level bans in Illinois and Connecticut, which could shape the future of firearm regulation across the country. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, the interplay between historical tradition, public safety, and individual liberty remains central to the ongoing discourse surrounding the Second Amendment. Whether the courts will ultimately affirm or narrow the scope of firearm restrictions will depend on how these competing interests are reconciled in the coming months. For now, the rulings in Baxter and New Jersey illustrate the complexity of applying constitutional principles to contemporary issues of gun control.
7 reports
Breitbart NewsIndependentConservativeFactual 90Objective 658 days agoTexas Democratic Senatorial candidate James Talarico expressed support for banning 'assault weapons' during a 2020 livestream interview, despite publicly identifying as a supporter of the Second Amendment. In the interview, Talarico argued that the Second Amendment includes limitations such as 'well regulated,' comparing gun control measures to restrictions on free speech in the First Amendment. He outlined several gun control policies he supports, including universal background checks, closing the gun show loophole, and banning large-capacity magazines. While these positions align with his public stance, the interview revealed more extreme anti-gun views, such as supporting handgun design safety standards and restricting firearm purchases. The interview remains largely unseen, with only 130 views on YouTube. The Daily Caller and the National Rifle Association (NRA) have noted Talarico's potential shift toward more restrictive gun policies.
Bias read (Conservative): The article frames Talarico's support for gun control measures as evidence of his 'true gun-grabbing intentions,' using terms like 'extreme anti-gun nature' and highlighting his opposition to 'constitutional carry.' The tone suggests skepticism toward Talarico's pro-Second Amendment claims and leans
Why factuality (90): The article provides specific details about Talarico's 2020 interview where he discussed gun control measures, aligning with the primary source document's description of his anti-gun stance. It accurately references his statements and positions.
Why objectivity (65): The article uses strong language and frames Talarico's statements as indicative of a 'gun-grabbing' intent, showing a clear ideological bias towards supporting gun rights. This affects the overall objectivity.
ReasonParty-alignedConservativeFactual 80Objective 704 days agoIn the case U.S. v. Baxter, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the conviction of Baxter for possessing a firearm while being an unlawful drug user under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). This ruling followed the Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Hemani, which questioned the constitutionality of applying this law to individuals using marijuana, but left unresolved whether such laws could still apply if there was evidence that the drug use posed a threat to safety. In Baxter’s case, he was involved in a gang-related altercation in Des Moines, Iowa, where he was found with a loaded gun and marijuana. Law enforcement pursued him after a bystander reported his possession of a weapon, leading to his arrest. The court ruled that Baxter’s conviction did not violate his Second Amendment rights, emphasizing that the law applies when someone is actively using drugs while in possession of a firearm.
Bias read (Conservative): The article frames the issue through the lens of upholding federal gun control laws against challenges based on the Second Amendment. It emphasizes the court’s conclusion that the application of § 922(g)(3) is constitutional in cases involving active drug use, aligning with a pro-law-enforcement and
Why factuality (80): The article discusses Justice Scalia's personal correspondence regarding a religious liberty case, which is unrelated to Talarico's campaign. It does not contribute to the assessment of his gun-related positions.
Why objectivity (70): The article presents a factual account of Scalia's correspondence but does not engage with the broader debate on gun rights, maintaining a somewhat neutral tone.
ReasonParty-alignedConservativeFactual 70Objective 602 days ago What Has Heller Wrought In 18 Years?This article reflects on the impact of the Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, which established an individual right to bear arms unconnected to militia service, eighteen years after its ruling. The author argues that despite this landmark decision, the practical implementation of the Second Amendment has seen minimal progress in blue states. While some victories exist, such as the invalidation of handgun bans and changes to concealed carry laws, many restrictions remain in place, including limitations on carrying firearms in public spaces and burdensome registration processes. The author notes that while the Supreme Court continues to address Second Amendment issues, the overall landscape for gun ownership remains largely unchanged since Heller.
Bias read (Conservative): The article frames the lack of progress on gun rights as a failure of liberal states and emphasizes the limited impact of Heller, suggesting that anti-gun policies persist despite judicial rulings. It uses rhetorical questions comparing Heller to other landmark decisions with greater societal impact
Why factuality (70): The article focuses on a legal case involving a firearm possession conviction and does not provide information relevant to Talarico's stance on gun rights or his campaign. Thus, it is not aligned with the primary source document.
Why objectivity (60): The article maintains a neutral tone regarding the legal case but fails to provide balanced perspectives on broader gun control debates, affecting its objectivity.
ReasonParty-alignedConservativeFactual 70Objective 609 days ago Supreme Court Begins Answering Lingering Questions About Constitutional Constraints on Gun ControlThe U.S. Supreme Court has recently addressed several issues related to gun control and the Second Amendment over a span of 12 days. The Court upheld the gun rights of cannabis consumers, rejecting the Trump administration's attempt to prosecute a Texas individual for possessing a firearm despite marijuana use. Additionally, the Court struck down Hawaii's law that restricted firearm carry on private property open to the public, citing a departure from traditional common-law rules. The ruling emphasized that such restrictions must not unreasonably limit individuals' ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights. The Court also agreed to review the constitutionality of 'assault weapon' bans, which are often politically contentious.
Bias read (Conservative): The article frames the Supreme Court's rulings as protecting broader interpretations of the Second Amendment, particularly emphasizing the rejection of state-level gun control measures that restrict firearm ownership. The emphasis on upholding gun rights and criticizing restrictive policies aligns a
Why factuality (70): This article discusses a Supreme Court case concerning AR-15s and their classification, which is tangentially related to the broader discussion of gun control. It does not focus on Talarico's specific positions or actions.
Why objectivity (60): The article presents a biased viewpoint on gun control, suggesting a preference for limiting government power over firearms, which influences its objectivity.
The HillIndependentConservative3 hr. agoA federal appeals court ruled that New Jersey's ban on 'assault' firearms and high-capacity magazines violates the Second Amendment, striking down the restrictions in a 10-5 decision. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, including a judge appointed by former President Biden, held that the Second Amendment applies to all magazines, not just those defined as 'standard capacity' by New Jersey. The state had previously banned magazines with more than 10 rounds and classified AR-15s and similar weapons as 'assault firearms.' The ruling comes amid broader debates over gun control, with the Supreme Court set to address related issues soon. Dissenting judges, including one appointed by former President Obama, argued that AR-15s are too dangerous for civilian use and not protected under the Second Amendment.
Bias read (Conservative): The article frames the ruling as a significant victory for gun rights advocates, emphasizing the court's rejection of New Jersey's restrictions as a violation of the Second Amendment. The language highlights the conservative majority's interpretation of the Constitution and aligns with the positions
NewsweekIndependentConservative4 hr. agoA federal appeals court in the Third Circuit ruled that New Jersey's assault weapons ban, which prohibits semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15, violates the Second Amendment. This makes New Jersey the first state to have its assault weapons ban struck down by a federal appellate court. The decision aligns with the Supreme Court's 2022 Bruen ruling, which set a new standard for evaluating firearm restrictions based on historical tradition. New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport criticized the ruling, stating it contradicts previous decisions by other circuits and argued that the ban was reasonable. The case adds to ongoing legal battles over state-level gun control laws, with similar challenges currently before the Supreme Court in Illinois and Connecticut.
Bias read (Conservative): The article frames the ruling as a victory for gun rights, emphasizing the Second Amendment and criticizing the ban as 'unlawful' and 'contrary to precedent.' It highlights the conservative Supreme Court's influence through the Bruen decision and suggests that the ruling reflects a broader trend of擴
ReasonParty-alignedProgressive23 hr. ago Second Amendment Roundup: Seventh Circuit Decides BarnettOn July 9, the Seventh Circuit upheld Illinois' ban on AR-15 rifles in the case Barnett v. Raoul, despite the Supreme Court having recently granted certiorari in a related case, Viramontes v. Cook County, concerning the same issue. The ruling appears to align with previous decisions supporting firearm restrictions, though it has been criticized for potentially contradicting established Supreme Court precedents like Heller. Meanwhile, other circuits such as the Ninth and Third Circuits are awaiting further guidance from the Supreme Court before making rulings on similar cases involving state-level AR-15 bans. The Seventh Circuit’s decision has drawn attention for its reliance on older legal interpretations and its apparent disregard for more recent Supreme Court rulings.
Bias read (Progressive): The article critiques the Seventh Circuit's decision as being out of alignment with recent Supreme Court rulings and highlights the potential contradiction between the circuit's interpretation and established constitutional precedents. The framing emphasizes the court's adherence to restrictive gun-
★
Keep the news honest.
ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €5/month.
Become a Supporter
United States
