The case involves someone convicted of a drug misdemeanor so minor, there’s not even jail time for it. The court mentions the Second Amendment argument, and then proceeds to completely ignore it. Eugene Volokh notes:
So it seems that the court is concluding that the Second Amendment doesnâ€™t protect people who have even a minor misdemeanor marijuana possession conviction â€” not a felony, not a violent misdemeanor, not even a misdemeanor that could yield any time at all in jail, and not anything that involves a finding that the defendant is an illegal drug user right now â€” without at all explaining why this should indeed be so. Strikes me as pretty hard to defend; or am I missing something here?
I’d say it’s pretty hard to defend, and I find it interesting how many lower level courts just want to dispose of the Second Amendment issue, usually through citation of the “longstanding prohibitions” language in Heller. I think it’s probably constitutional to deny Second Amendment rights to people addicted to drugs much in the same manner as people who are mentally ill. But that prohibition shouldn’t be permanent. It seems ridiculous that someone could suffer a lifetime prohibition for a crime that doesn’t rank much higher than a traffic ticket.