State of West Virginia v. William T. Wilfong, 881 S.E.2d 426

Deputy stopped Wilfong for a suspicious vehicle, discovered a suspended license and an active warrant, and arrested him; a search of his vehicle produced a Remington rifle, a loaded magazine, and a digital scale with suspected marijuana residue.
Wilfong had a prior controlled-substance conviction (disposed May 28, 2019) and told the deputy he "uses marijuana" regularly and last smoked about a week before arrest.
He was charged under W. Va. Code § 61-7-7(a)(3), which bars firearm possession by a person who "is an unlawful user of . . . any controlled substance."
Wilfong moved to declare the statute facially void for vagueness for failing to define "unlawful user" or specify how long one remains such a user after drug use; the circuit court denied the motion.
Wilfong entered a conditional guilty plea reserving the right to appeal the constitutionality of the statute; he was sentenced (one year, suspended, one year probation).
The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Wilfong could not prevail on a facial vagueness challenge because the statute is not vague as applied to his admitted conduct (regular, recent marijuana use contemporaneous with firearm possession).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 61-7-7(a)(3) is facially void for vagueness for failing to define "unlawful user"	Wilfong: statute gives no guidance on who is an "unlawful user" or how long the status lasts after drug use; uncertain when Second Amendment rights are forfeited	State: Wilfong lacks standing for a facial challenge because his admitted regular, recent marijuana use put him squarely within the statute as applied	Court: Facial challenge fails; Wilfong cannot show vagueness as applied to his conduct, so facial invalidation is improper
Proper construction of "unlawful user" (temporal nexus)	Wilfong: statute is ambiguous about temporal scope and pattern of use required	State: Legislature used present tense; statute should be read to require regular use contemporaneous or proximate to firearm possession	Court: Adopts a construction requiring a temporal nexus—regular/recent use contemporaneous with possession—giving adequate notice and avoiding vagueness

State v. Rutherford, 223 W. Va. 1, 672 S.E.2d 137 (review of constitutionality is de novo)
State v. James, 227 W. Va. 407, 710 S.E.2d 98 (presumption of constitutionality; resolve doubts in favor of statute)
State v. Flinn, 158 W. Va. 111, 208 S.E.2d 538 (criminal statutes tested by construing in light of applied conduct)
State v. Blair, 190 W. Va. 425, 438 S.E.2d 605 (void-for-vagueness principles and notice requirement)
United States v. Purdy, 264 F.3d 809 (9th Cir.) (rejecting facial vagueness where defendant regularly used drugs contemporaneous with firearm possession)
United States v. Bramer, 832 F.3d 908 (8th Cir.) (rejecting facial challenge where defendant admitted possessing firearms while regularly using marijuana)
United States v. Augustin, 376 F.3d 135 (3d Cir.) (holding unlawful-user requires regular use proximate to possession)
United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (hypothetical or close cases do not justify facial invalidation; proof beyond a reasonable doubt addresses borderline applications)