Ban On Marijuana Users Owning Guns Ruled Unconstitutional

[Route 45]

Ban on marijuana users owning guns is unconstitutional, U.S. judge rules

A federal law prohibiting marijuana users from possessing firearms is unconstitutional, a federal judge in Oklahoma has concluded, citing last year's U.S. Supreme Court ruling that significantly expanded gun rights.

www.reuters.com

Toke if ya got 'em.

 

[KLB]

Blood will be flowing!

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Blood will be flowing!

There will be Doritos and Oreos in the streets!

 

[Leadeye]

I would think that this would have been covered under other statutes, much like people shooting at random things when drunk. Criminal recklessness maybe?

 

[DeadeyeChrista'sdad]

Blood will be flowing!

 

[Pepi]

I can still shoot at 100 yards with a bag of Doritos on my trigger finger

 

[Shadow01]

Not a fan of the grass, but critics of this ruling need to ask what other rights can you be banned from? Can I be banned from my free speech rights for weed? Will the government ban me from my religion of choice because I have a dui? The suspension of rights should be equal across all rights if that is what we are willing to accept with gun rights.

 

[Jeepster48439]

Bruen to the rescue again. Looking to see the full path this will take.

 

[BE Mike]

Not a fan of the grass, but critics of this ruling need to ask what other rights can you be banned from? Can I be banned from my free speech rights for weed? Will the government ban me from my religion of choice because I have a dui? The suspension of rights should be equal across all rights if that is what we are willing to accept with gun rights.

There is no constitutional right to violate the law. Don't like the law? Get it changed!

 

[jwamplerusa]

I have been pondering for a bit how the left would weaponize Bruen. This may be one of those ways.

What is the background of the judge?

 

[Aszerigan]

Now get that stupid question *that people lie about* off the 4473.

 

[Sigblitz]

I would think that this would have been covered under other statutes, much like people shooting at random things when drunk. Criminal recklessness maybe?

I have seen a few users get injured for making airhead mistakes. Personally I wouldn't go to the range with Mr. Cloudy.
I don't see a direct tangent correlation with recreational use and a danger to others out in the real. I just choose to shoot with someone that doesn't smash their finger and muzzle flash me.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I would think that this would have been covered under other statutes, much like people shooting at random things when drunk. Criminal recklessness maybe?

This case wasn't about use of a firearm while stoned, just possession of a firearm while being a user/in possession of cannabis. They didn't perform any field sobriety tests or blood tests or charge him for operating under the influence.

There is no constitutional right to violate the law. Don't like the law? Get it changed!

A Law repugnant to the Constitution something, something...

I have been pondering for a bit how the left would weaponize Bruen. This may be one of those ways.

What is the background of the judge?

Trump appointee, but I'm not quite sure how this is the left weaponizing Bruen. Unless you think that only the left is for legalization of cannabis? Or thinks that this is an infringement on the 2nd.

I have seen a few users get injured for making airhead mistakes. Personally I wouldn't go to the range with Mr. Cloudy.
I don't see a direct tangent correlation with recreational use and a danger to others out in the real. I just choose to shoot with someone that doesn't smash their finger and muzzle flash me.

Pretty much the same here if you're talking about Mr. Cloudy being intoxicated while at the range. Same goes for alcohol as well.

 

[Route 45]

I have been pondering for a bit how the left would weaponize Bruen. This may be one of those ways.

What is the background of the judge?

Patrick Wyrick

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

 

[Steelwaver]

I think similar to persons who shoot at random objects while intoxicated, I would have thought that this would have been protected under other laws. Maybe criminal irresponsibility.

 

[jwamplerusa]

Patrick Wyrick

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

View attachment 253113

That is a positive.

My point is, that for most situations there is the intended effect, and the unintended effect. Those who desire to disarm you and be your master rarely look at a judicial ruling the same way constitutionalists do.

One way to weaponize Bruen would be to use it as the basis for killing laws which all but the most absolutist among the citizenry would seem reasonable. (keep in mind, I am probably one of those absolutists)

I have my own standards regarding use of alcohol and firearms. I have no interest in imposing my standards on someone else. If they endanger me or mine due to their impairment, there are other laws and actions to address that occurrence.

My $.02 and not even worth what you paid.

 

[COOPADUP]

I personally don’t care if someone imbibes as long as they are not doing it before going to the range.
There’s enough stupid going on without adding another element to the situation.

 

[BE Mike]

Anyone who has filled out a 4473 to buy a gun and is subsequently arrested for drug possession charges is taking a big chance. Distracted drivers shouldn't be driving and impaired people shouldn't be handling firearms. There are enough stone cold sober folks out there who are doing stupid stuff with cars and guns.

 

[Route 45]

Anyone who has filled out a 4473 to buy a gun and is subsequently arrested for drug possession charges is taking a big chance.

The question:

"Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside."

How would a person subsequently arrested for drug possession be in any jeopardy? The question only asks about current usage or addiction.

Interesting to note that addiction to "any depressant" is mentioned. Alcohol is a depressant. Is the ATF posting outside of AA meetings to see who lied on the 4473?

 

[Basher]

Good, IMO. Alcohol is a far more hazardous substance, but nobody cares if you’re drunk off your ass and own firearms unless you’re shooting while drunk. Same should apply to weed. And I don’t drink OR smoke.