Now Heller has stated definitively that everybody has a right to possess a firearm, while giving a nod to the right being abridged if someone is a convicted felon or adjudged insane, or some other such. The court, in this case reasons:
The statements “if you have a gun, you can’t sell cocaine” and “if you sell cocaine, you can’t have a gun” are identical.
The two statements are not even remotely the same. In the first case, let’s say business is being conducted as usual, i.e. goods or currency is pushed across the table to the left, and cocaine is pushed across the table to the right and everybody parts company amicably. In this case, it would be not only legal, but completely unsurprising for the dealer, and possibly even the customer to be armed. It’s a seedy neighborhood after all, and both parties are carrying something of value, commercially similar to, say, jewelry. The statement seems to imply that if I don’t have a gun, then I may sell cocaine.
The second statement is ridiculous on its face. Selling Cocaine is illegal, possessing a gun, absent any disqualifiers, is not. The correct phrase is “If you are convicted of selling cocaine, then you can’t have a gun.”
In view of Heller, I am thinking that a lot of crime laws are now in question, as the possession of a firearm, absent disqualifiers, is not a crime. If, however, the gun is used as an accessory in commission of a crime, then the law may legally expand the penalties for the crime, as in “armed robbery”, or “assault with a deadly weapon”.
If the drug dealer, prior to his conviction, was otherwise not disqualified from possessing the gun, then no charges relating to the gun should be filed. The right to vote is also abridged in many places for the same reasons as the right to arms. It is interesting to consider how the case would sound if voting were substituted for gun possession.