This sounds like an attempt to prevent black people from owning guns, in the same way a marijuana conviction has kept them from owning dispensaries.
I know white people smoke pot, but they don’t usually try to make laws to keep white people down in the same way.
The case in front of SCOTUS is not about implementing a new restriction. It is about if a long standing restriction on the unrelated use of controlled substances is a Constitutional violation. Weed is grabbing the headline, but the restriction applies to a vast range of substances.
Thank you for the clarification. I read this when I was half asleep.
You are exactly right in how this law has been used. However, this case is looking to overturn that and set a precidedent for allowing marijuana users to own guns.
TBF, I think the people smoking pot should be the ONLY ones allowed to have guns, much more laid back.
They can have it once it’s empty.
Well said.
What if I irregularly smoke pot?
Like upside down? Or in a funny hat?
Only can own ARs then
Feels like alcohol should be higher in priority over weed when it comes to anger issues
This case is not about imposing new restrictions.
deleted by creator
Logically, yes, but this court doesn’t need logic where it is going…
Came here for this: which of the substances makes you more likely to play Russian roulette?
The amount of accidents with guns and blood alcohol concentration must be fairly high.
Watch as the GOP takes away gun rights from a sizable portion of their own pot smoking, 2A glazing base… and none will waiver their support.
Like clockwork, they get mad for all of 3 seconds, then they remember the GOP is leading the genocide against brown people and LGBTQ+ people, then they forget anything happened at all.
I wish people would read the articles. Weed is already Federally prohibited. The case is an attempt to overturn that.
It’s already illegal. This is a challenge to restore those rights.
One of the biggest potheads I know is a right wing trumpet with TONS of guns. The irony would be pretty sweet I gotta say.
I think you’re a little mixed up. It is currently illegal for a regular pot smoker to own guns. The supreme court is looking at potentially getting rid of that restriction. So if they did, I think it would actually reenforce your friend’s love of Trump.
Fuck, I clearly only read the headline and inferred that they’d be looking for an excuse to take guns seat in states where it’s legal (mostly but not all bluer states).
And to add more to this, the plaintiff is from Texas.
Scotus will likely overturn this
I very much doubt it was doing much to help anyway. The rich fuckers who can afford both guns and weed are gonna do it either way.
They’re just trying to find other ways to take guns from leftists and trans people.
Also, since pot is federally illegal, and legal states don’t normally give the feds buyer info, how the hell would they even know? A form asking if you smoke pot? What stops someone from just saying they don’t?
the question on the form is not temporally bound; it asks if you are currently using. i read it as “are you smoking while filling the form out?”
the answer is always “no.”
I have heard (not sure) that at least here in California, the rule applies to using pot in the past year, or maybe it was 5 years. I expect it is written down somewhere.
it’s a fed form no? iirc it doesn’t say a time range other than “current”?
It doesn’t even say that. It says:
Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana
or other stuff. It does not define “user”.
that’s it. yep. while ambiguity on a form gives leeway to the person who did not write it, this is still pretty clear to me. user of? (using while filling out form?) “addicted to”? ask any drunk they’ll tell you they’re not an addict. 😉
While that might be how you interpret it, I’m sure a court would disagree.
that’s my whole point. :)
Idk maybe it’s documented some other place or the dealer is supposed to explain it. I’ve never dealt with the process myself.
This is already the law, they are actually looking to overturn it. Despite having used it to prosecute Hunter Biden.
Yeah, makes sense from that perspective.
Fraud charges.
I guess, but “regularly” is hard to prove in court, or at least it was before 2025. Also before 2025, something would have to happen for you to be investigated for that in the first place. I’m sure now they’ll just make up a reason to investigate pot smokers.
I do wonder how it would go over in court now. In a jury trial, the prosecution would likely still have to prove that you “regularly” smoke pot, right?
I suppose my point is that it probably won’t be very effective in stopping pot smokers from owning guns (especially those that already own guns) if it’s just a yes/no on a form.
The way the law works currently it’s just a mechanism to remove gun rights from people and to tack on extra bullshit charges to anyone who happens to get caught with a little weed and also owns guns. Sincerely hope they can actually change this law because it is almost entirely used for bullshit.
the gop hardon for weed+jailtime, to feed into the forprofit system, in order to get kickbacks plus use the prison population as part of the census.
I’ll take any form of gun control at this point
The case is not about implementing new gun control, but looking at if an aspect of existing control is unconstitutional.
Great, they’ll prohibit it, and then we’ll have a lot of stressed out gun owners.
It’s already prohibited. This case is aiming to change that and permit marijuana users to own guns.
NO ONE IN THIS COMMENT SECTION READ PAST THE HEADLINE.
Everyone here is assuming they’re trying to outlaw this. It is already outlawed. They’re looking to overturn it.
Everyone here is assuming they’re trying to outlaw this. It is already outlawed. They’re looking to overturn it.
WHO is trying to overturn it? Did YOU read the article?
Remember that the supreme court often picks up a case after a back and forth, and that the previous ‘last stop’ of the case helps determine what’s going on. The previous court had voided the law, and now dump and co. are trying to revive the case. So if the supreme court was fine with ‘legalizing it’ they could have done so by dint of letting the lower court’s ruling lie. Maybe, just maybe, the supreme court is doing what it is supposed to do when lower courts disagree with each other on rulings, but let’s be honest, do you think this supreme court cares about anything but helping the conservative pushes? If it gets more laws that can be used against non-wasps, they’ll slap down some ai generated bullshit faster than thomas can get in an rv.
The assessment should consider ALL mind altering substances the gun owner consumes. Beer, weed, medications. Self-reporting isn’t great, but better than nothing.
Wonderful, set precedent that the 2nd amendment is totally subject to the whim of the president. Then let’s flip all of government in 2028 and work on fixing this gun problem once and for all.
i’m all for better gun laws, and I speak as someone who owns multiple and yet still does not trust the 2nd amendment anyway. I think we should be reminding folks that “amendments” don’t mean shit, and we need legit common sense laws.
and a separation of concerns when it comes to what a gov can and cannot do. eg: laws won’t stop ppl from owning guns, but mental health/healthcare WILL stop people from causing harm.
gotta be careful with the wording, because “common sense” has such a broad meaning that it can be used by fascist to distort reality.
true!! i mean logical. my bad.
Well that’s not the case though. It’s up to interpretation by the Supreme Court. This is nothing new
Aren’t the pot smokers more mellow and less likely to fight/shoot/kill someone. I think drinkers stand a better chance of violence. How about we leave both groups alone. Case closed … next?
I think the issue should be pretty cut and dry. You can drink as often as you want and own guns. You can’t go out shooting while you’re drinking. You should be able to smoke whenever you want as long as you’re not inebriated when you’re shooting.
You can’t go out shooting while you’re drinking. You should be able to smoke whenever you want as long as you’re not inebriated when you’re shooting.
Fully agree, and have alienated myself from former friends over this.
You can drink all day and night. but don’t you dare touch a firearm while drinking. I don’t care if you’re just a little buzzed, man
As far as I’m concerned, smoke weed every day. But don’t you dare touch a firearm while high. I don’t care if you’re just a little toasty, man
Drugs and guns don’t mix. Alcohol is a drug. Don’t drink and shoot.
Well, drugs that impair you, anyway. Caffeine, for example, is fine, unless you’ve had so much that you get jittery.
What does this have to do with legally owning a gun. This isn’t about shooting inebriated. This is about cherry picking one group and castigating them. I have no idea where you go the idea that anyone said it was okay to get high and shoot. That’s a total straw man.
This ridiculous nonsense should and will get the NRA up in arms.
Chill dude, you’re calling out “straw man” like I’m disagreeing with you. I’m saying that the rules should work the same way. There’s no reason people that smoke should be banned from gun ownership, just like people who drink aren’t banned.
I simply replied to your post that didn’t address the topic of pigeonholing pot smokers to segue about people who smoke pot shouldn’t shoot like drinkers can’t shoot. Yes we all agree anyone fucked up shouldn’t be shooting and I really haven’t heard anyone suggesting they should? Especially here so yeah that’s a logical fallacy even if good intentioned.
Wow, you’re a little insufferable
they should be the worry about the cocaine and meth users.
I hope they decide they can. That said the entire corpus of the Roberts court still needs thrown out
