SCOTUS to consider whether pot smokers can own guns

this will not work out well for magatards.

"i'm dying of cancer and the only thing that eases my pain are weed and shooting."
 
Anyone who can't be responsible with a weapon should have their weapons taken away.
 
This is interesting.
Just a few months ago the op started a thread touting curtailing this very right, but now seems eager for SCOTUS to affirm.
Guess this speaks to the power of a person to change. 🥳 I guess that is until another mass shooting is caused by a weed smoking leftist.

https://forum.literotica.com/threads/did-pot-make-the-dallas-ice-shooter-psychotic.1641705/
No contradiction. I did start a thread referencing a WSJ column about a shooter with a history of chronic cannabis use and video game obsession. The column summarized research indicating a link between chronic cannabis use and psychosis, especially among adolescents. I believe I noted that it’s a very small percentage of marijuana users, and that the cases involve people who consume excessively.

I said it’s an area that merits further research, but I didn’t make any proposals regarding pot laws.

There is some irony in this case however. Most gun rights advocates are also Trump voters. The AP story indicates that the Trump administration asked the court to review the case. Apparently they support laws prohibiting pot smokers from buying or owning guns.

I doubt SCOTUS will side with the government. I suspect the court accepted the case so they can uphold and bolster 2A rights.
 
I want to see how they can tie a constitutional right to a federally illegal substance. The next step would be drivers licenses. :)
 
I want to see how they can tie a constitutional right to a federally illegal substance. The next step would be drivers licenses. :)
They can do it for people convicted of narcotics use. Hunter Biden learned that the hard way. But not many people these days get arrested for weed possession, let alone convicted.
 
They can do it for people convicted of narcotics use. Hunter Biden learned that the hard way. But not many people these days get arrested for weed possession, let alone convicted.
Question 21.f on Form 4473 (as of the 2023 edition) asks whether you are an unlawful user of, or addicted to, any controlled substance; note that alcohol is not mentioned because it is not controlled under the Controlled Substances Act. However, if a person is habitually drunk to the point of being considered an “addict” or “user of intoxicants” under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) case law, they could still be considered prohibited from possessing a firearm, but that’s based on court interpretation of impairment, not because alcohol itself is a controlled substance. So that said, if a heavy alcoholic can be denied the use of firearms, it seems reasonable to me that certain levels of drug use should be a red line as well.
 
Probably the larger and more pertinent question is, is it now time and has it come to legalize pot? If they did that, then it would be removed from the controlled substances list and it wouldn't matter if you burned one here and there for purposes of passing the background check required to purchase firearms from FFLs.
 
America is so free...lol. I can buy a big bag of weed and a gun and be home in an hour with my weed and gun.

Americans have been duped into thinking they are free.
 
So gun owners would have to do random drug testing like CDLs? Pretty ridiculous. :)
 
I don't see what the issue is here. Why shouldn't people who are stoned out of their minds, and having paranoid delusions about their neighbors spying om them, be allowed to defend themselves with deadly force?
 
Question 21.f on Form 4473 (as of the 2023 edition) asks whether you are an unlawful user of, or addicted to, any controlled substance; note that alcohol is not mentioned because it is not controlled under the Controlled Substances Act. However, if a person is habitually drunk to the point of being considered an “addict” or “user of intoxicants” under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) case law, they could still be considered prohibited from possessing a firearm, but that’s based on court interpretation of impairment, not because alcohol itself is a controlled substance. So that said, if a heavy alcoholic can be denied the use of firearms, it seems reasonable to me that certain levels of drug use should be a red line as well
👆👆👆👆👆
Good points. Upon further review, I believe you are correct. A narrow ruling in support of the government’s position seems likely.
 
Drug testing for all gun owners is a brilliant idea. Along with a thorough mental health assessment.

Who would vote for a drug addict to wander around with firearms? (Apart from Stan of course)
 
Back
Top