XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.guns, alt.politics.republicans
XPost: sac.politics, law.court.federal
From: not-in-arizona@rudy.invalid
On 03 Aug 2025, useapen posted some
news:XnsB3301D0B588BX@157.180.91.226:
> Should marijuana users be prohibited from owning a gun?
>
> Historically, laws existed to keep people who were intoxicated from
> carrying firearms because they were potentially dangerous, which is
> how some people justify the prohibition.
>
> The thing is, the ban is for people who use them at all. They're not
> prohibited from handling them when they're under the influence, but
> can't own one at all if they're a user, even if it's legal in their
> state.
>
> That's because marijuana hasn't been rescheduled, and this is
> considered an illegal drug with no medical benefit, even though its
> benefits have been long documented.
>
> Because of that, the prohibition stands, though many argue it
> shouldn't.
>
> Now, the Supreme Court is set to discuss the matter in September.
>
> Amid a smattering of recent court cases across the country casting
> doubt on the constitutionality of the federal government’s blanket ban
> on firearm possession by marijuana users—a law known as Section
> 922(g)(3)—the U.S. Supreme Court is set to privately discuss in
> September whether to take up a pending case that centers on the
> statute.
>
> According to the high court’s docket for the case, U.S. v. Cooper, the
> matter has been distributed to justices for consideration in a private
> conference on September 29. An appeals court panel previously
> dismissed a three-year prison sentence against the defendant, who was
> convicted for possession of a firearm while being an active user of
> marijuana.
>
> The development comes as at least two separate but similar cases wait
> in the wings. One, U.S. v. Baxter, involves a defendant found in
> possession of both a firearm and a bag of marijuana. The government
> charged him under 922(g)(3), which prohibits gun ownership by
> “unlawful” users of controlled substances.
>
> Personally, I find the continued prosecution of marijuana users by
> federal authorities incredibly hypocritical.
>
> The reason is that marijuana is still restricted under federal law,
> which is the grounds for the ban, but federal authorities do nothing
> about dispensaries all across the nation that sell it in broad
> daylight. DEA agents will roll right past a dispensary and do nothing
> at all. It's technically illegal, but the federal government allows
> the law to be skirted.
>
> Which is fine, honestly. I don't care.
>
> What bothers me is that they'll ignore this violation of the law, then
> jam up people who are using the exact same substance, who haven't hurt
> anyone, simply because they own a gun while also being a user of a
> drug the feds do nothing about otherwise.
>
> Either marijuana makes people dangerous or it doesn't. If it makes
> people too dangerous to be allowed to have guns, then why look away
> while it's being sold?
>
> I suspect these and many others are questions the Supreme Court
> justices will be grappling with as they discuss the situation in
> conference. I honestly don't see how, under the circumstances, the
> justices can find the prohibition constitutional, though I said the
> same thing about Rahimi. To say I can be wrong is to put it mildly.
>
> Still, this is a chance to at least set the record straight and put an
> end to this silliness.
>
> Of course, changing the laws on marijuana one way or the other would
> end it, too.
>
> https://bearingarms.com/tomknighton/2025/07/27/scotus-pot-users-should-
> be- prohibited-from-owning-guns-n1229391
They shouldn't be be allowed to use or own guns of any sort. They should
lose their license and any vehicle they might be driving if they get
caught too. Pot makes you stupid. Stupid kills innocent people.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
