·
Case and law context
Interpretation-only case: no CASE context or instance blocks recorded in this snapshot.
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
We emphasize, however, that to sustain a con-vietion under § 922(g)(3), the government must prove — as it did here — that the defendant took drugs with regularity, over an extended period of time, and contemporaneously with his purchase or possession of a firearm.
We emphasize, however, that to sustain a con-vietion under § 922(g)(3), the government must prove — as it did here — that the defendant took drugs with regularity, over an extended period of time, and contemporaneously with his purchase or possession of a firearm.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_264.jsonl#/f3d/264/0809-01; Unicode character offsets [8170:8434] (end exclusive); SHA-256 4e85fc5a205c82795b0074acd70f103c0e28516edc1018c880d8a14e963178c4.Purdy, 264 F.3d 809, 812-13 (9th Cir. 2001), supplies a Ninth Circuit statutory construction in an as-applied vagueness decision. Apply the governing circuit's formulation and proof beyond reasonable doubt; this is not a nationwide fixed lookback period. It defines the user branch, not the alternative addiction branch. Hemani's Second Amendment question remains separate.