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.
I’m inclined to entirely agree though the abject hypocrisy (I know, par for the course of conservatives) will be through the roof if the individuals who staked their entire personality on “we can’t restrain gun ownership in any remote way because the plain-text of the constitution” find pot usage to be the only acceptable background check.
A wrinkle to this case is that Federally marijuana is in the most restricted category. It’s above meth or cocaine.
Obviously a lot of people consider those drugs more harmful than marijuana, but if we are playing the legal game then marijuana is legislated as being more dangerous and that’s what the court has to work with.
SCOTUS I think has to decide if controlled substance use as a whole can prohibit legally buying a gun or not. I’m not sure if they can just make a carveout for marijuana. (Also the person taking the case up had cocaine too, so it can’t not be brought up.)
You’d be surprised how many 2A people, who are across the political spectrum, are fine with removing that category of prohibition entirely. However I wonder if it will make SCOTUS more hesitant to make such an “extreme” ruling.
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.
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.
What if I irregularly smoke pot?
Only can own ARs then
Like upside down? Or in a funny hat?
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.
It’s already illegal. This is a challenge to restore those rights.
Pot snokers may be on the fence about you coming for their guns, but gun owners are gonna get real mad about you coming for their weed
snokers
IS THERE SOME WAY OF IMBIBING WEED THAT I AM NOT AWARE OF AND WHAT IS IT
Snoking is like smoking but with an enya.
Oh you ain’t ready to snoke yet my son
Far out man.
Smoking pot should be mandatory. Some people need to calm down, mellow out.
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
Can’t wait to send this to the weed smoking chud I know. Also they gonna throw out Hunter Biden’s criminal conviction?
Weed is already prohibited. The case is about overturning that.
People who regularly smoke weed should not own guns. Neither should anyone else. Sincerely, every developed nation.
If everyone else gets guns, then weed smokers get guns too, otherwise it’s a very convenient way to selectively apply gun restrictions to specific groups of people.
yeah, i agree the disparity is shit. there is no legitimate reason to treat weed smokers differently. if you were to use a gun in self defence, say, i can understand that whether you were impaired at the time might be PART of the legal picture, but that notion should apply evenly to everyone, irrespective of the drug. like you said, it is just another tool for targeted enforcement.
After smoking, I’d be too scared to even look at my gun, let alone use it.
Nah, guns are cool and fun.
Funny thing is, i agree. i used to like going to the range, shooting clay pigeons, etc. handguns are tightly controlled in my country, but i imagine i would like them too if i ever got to use one. i still don’t think just everyone should have one, though, because the societal price is too high to justify.
Seems reasonable.
So is weed.
Feels like alcohol should be higher in priority over weed when it comes to anger issues
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.
recovering alcoholic here who has had guns, this comment is spot on. I smoke pot as well, never had an issue when high, but have been stupid with guns while drunk.
I hope they decide they can. That said the entire corpus of the Roberts court still needs thrown out
