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 izvještaja
Breitbart NewsNeovisanKonzervativnoČinjenice 90Objektivnost 65prije 8 danaTeksaški demokratski senatorski kandidat James Talarico izrazio je podršku zabrani "napadačkog oružja" tijekom intervjua uživo 2020. godine, unatoč tome što se javno identificirao kao pristalica Drugog amandmana. U intervjuu, Talarico je tvrdio da Drugi amandman uključuje ograničenja kao što su "dobro regulisana", uspoređujući mjere kontrole oružja s ograničenjima slobode govora u Prvom amandmanu.
Procjena pristranosti (Konzervativno): U članku se Talarićeva podrška mjerama kontrole oružja prikazuje kao dokaz njegove "istinske namjere da se uhvati za oružje", koristeći izraze poput "ekstremne protivničke prirode" i naglašavajući njegovo protivljenje "ustavnom nošenju oružja".
Zašto činjenice (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.
Zašto objektivnost (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.
ReasonStranački povezanKonzervativnoČinjenice 80Objektivnost 70prije 4 danaU slučaju SAD protiv Baxtera, Apelacijski sud osmog okruga potvrdio je Baxterovu osudu za posjedovanje vatrenog oružja dok je bio nezakoniti korisnik droge prema 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g) (iii). Ova je odluka uslijedila nakon odluke Vrhovnog suda u slučaju SAD protiv Hemanija, koja je dovela u pitanje ustavnost primjene ovog zakona na pojedince koji koriste marihuanu, ali je ostavila neriješeno da li se takvi zakoni još uvijek mogu primjenjivati ako postoje dokazi da uporaba droge predstavlja prijetnju sigurnosti.
Procjena pristranosti (Konzervativno): U članku je postavljeno pitanje kroz prizmu podržavanja saveznih zakona o kontroli oružja protiv izazova na temelju Drugog amandmana.
Zašto činjenice (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.
Zašto objektivnost (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.
ReasonStranački povezanKonzervativnoČinjenice 70Objektivnost 60prekjučer Što je Heller napravio za 18 godina?Heller, koji je uspostavio individualno pravo na nošenje oružja koje nije povezano s milicijskom službom, osamnaest godina nakon presude. Autor tvrdi da je unatoč ovoj odluci, praktična provedba Drugog amandmana imala minimalni napredak u plavim državama. Iako postoje neke pobjede, kao što su poništenje zabrane ručnih pištolja i promjene zakona o skrivenom nošenju, ostaju na snazi mnoga ograničenja, uključujući ograničenja nošenja vatrenog oružja u javnim prostorima i opterećujuće postupke registracije.
Procjena pristranosti (Konzervativno): U članku se nedostatak napretka u pogledu prava na oružje opisuje kao neuspjeh liberalnih država i naglašava ograničen utjecaj Hellerove, sugerišući da se politike protiv oružja nastavljaju unatoč sudskim odlukama.
Zašto činjenice (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.
Zašto objektivnost (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.
ReasonStranački povezanKonzervativnoČinjenice 70Objektivnost 60prije 9 dana Vrhovni sud počinje odgovarati na pitanja o ustavnim ograničenjima kontrole oružjaVrhovni sud SAD-a nedavno je u razdoblju od 12 dana razmatrao nekoliko pitanja vezanih uz kontrolu oružja i Drugi amandman. Sud je potvrdio prava potrošača kanabisa na oružje, odbacujući pokušaj Trumpove administracije da procesuira pojedinca iz Teksasa zbog posjedovanja vatrenog oružja unatoč upotrebi marihuane.
Procjena pristranosti (Konzervativno): Članak uokviruje presude Vrhovnog suda kao zaštitu širih tumačenja Drugog amandmana, posebno naglašavajući odbacivanje mjera kontrole oružja na državnoj razini koje ograničavaju posjedovanje vatrenog oružja.
Zašto činjenice (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.
Zašto objektivnost (60): The article presents a biased viewpoint on gun control, suggesting a preference for limiting government power over firearms, which influences its objectivity.
The HillNeovisanKonzervativnoprije 3 hSavezni žalbeni sud presudio je da zabrana oružja za "napad" i magazina visokog kapaciteta u New Jerseyu krši Drugi amandman, ukidajući ograničenja u odluci od 10 prema 5. Treći okružni sud za žalbe SAD-a, uključujući suca kojeg je imenovao bivši predsjednik Biden, smatrao je da se Drugi amandman odnosi na sve magazine, a ne samo na one koje je New Jersey definirao kao "standardni kapacitet". Država je prethodno zabranila magazine s više od 10 metaka i klasificirala AR-15 i slično oružje kao "napadno oružje".
Procjena pristranosti (Konzervativno): U članku se navodi da je presuda značajna pobjeda za zagovornike prava na oružje, naglašavajući odbacivanje sudskih ograničenja New Jerseya kao kršenje Drugog amandmana.
NewsweekNeovisanKonzervativnoprije 4 hSavezni žalbeni sud u Trećem okrugu presudio je da zabrana oružja u New Jerseyu, koja zabranjuje poluautomatske puške poput AR-15, krši Drugi amandman. To New Jersey čini prvom državom u kojoj je zabrana oružja u napadu odbačena od strane saveznog žalbenog suda. Odluka je u skladu s Vrhovnog suda 2022. godine, koja je postavila novi standard za procjenu ograničenja vatrenog oružja na temelju povijesne tradicije.
Procjena pristranosti (Konzervativno): U članku se navodi da je presuda pobjeda za pravo na oružje, naglašavajući Drugi amandman i kritizirajući zabranu kao "nezakonitu" i "protivnu presedanu".
ReasonStranački povezanProgresivnoprije 23 h Drugi amandman: Sedmi okrug odlučuje BarnettDana 9. srpnja, Sedmi okrug je potvrdio zabranu Illinois na AR-15 puške u slučaju Barnett v. Raoul, unatoč tomu što je Vrhovni sud nedavno odobrio certiorari u srodnom slučaju, Viramontes v. Cook County, u vezi s istim pitanjem.
Procjena pristranosti (Progresivno): Članak kritizira odluku Sedmog Okružnog suda jer nije u skladu s nedavnim odlukama Vrhovnog suda i naglašava potencijalnu proturječnost između tumačenja Okružnog suda i uspostavljenih ustavnih presedana.
★
Neka vijesti ostanu poštene.
ObjectiveNews financiraju čitatelji i bez oglasa je – pristranost vam pokazujemo, ne skrivamo. Podržite neovisno novinarstvo za 5 €/mjesec.
Postani podupiratelj
United States
