Ban on Marijuana Users Owning Guns is Unconstitutional

[alucard0822]

It would be epic if FJB were to help dismantle both the 68GCA and 70CSA as both are unconstitutional. Hunter may be a POS, but I would rather see him go free, and the law he is charged with go away than see him go to prison, and the law stand.

FPC LOL.

 

[smokey]

It would be epic if FJB were to help dismantle both the 68GCA and 70CSA as both are unconstitutional. Hunter may be a POS, but I would rather see him go free, and the law he is charged with go away than see him go to prison, and the law stand.

FPC LOL.
View attachment 431293

fpc is based af

 

[fishgutzy]

It would be epic if FJB were to help dismantle both the 68GCA and 70CSA as both are unconstitutional. Hunter may be a POS, but I would rather see him go free, and the law he is charged with go away than see him go to prison, and the law stand.

FPC LOL.
View attachment 431293

Finally, a case that even far left anti-gun judges will find the drug use ban unconstitutional. But these judges will write the decision so narrowly that it only applies to Hunter.

 

[alucard0822]

Back to the original topic;

The 4473 says "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

While cannabis is listed as schedule 1 the true answer for someone that has EVER consumed Cannabis is yes ( let's assume for purposes of discussion that everyone is fully truthful on the form). I'm keying in on the word "unlawful".

Say the DEA follows the current HHS recommendation and changes it from schedule 1 to schedule 3. My understanding is schedule 3 can be lawfully possessed with a prescription.

Say one gets a Maryland weed card and actually consumes Cannabis. Say aside from the federal scheduling change, there are no other changes to the current status quo, including the 4473. Does that mean a MD resident with a valid medical weed card can consume and lawfully answer "no" on the 4473?

I'm asking for a friend.

Currently unlawful use only prohibits someone for a year, after that a person can answer no. barring conviction of an offense that is prohibiting on it's own:
https://www.justice.gov/file/1385186/download
If a person bought a firearm lawfully, stored the firearm elsewhere without access, uses cannabis the next day, and doesn't reveal it till a year later, they didn't lie on the 4473, are not currently prohibited, and were not in unlawful possession.

Legally, once cannabis changes scheduling, it will still be technically prohibiting without a prescription, but the question itself is vague crap, and unconstitutional. As worded, the ATF could technically kick in the door of someone spotted with a firearm and an "Coffee addict" shirt, or someone with a long term prescription for opiates to deal with chronic pain. It's a bogus catch all statement that has decades of case law limiting it, and hopefully it goes away soon, along with federal substance prohibitions. Almost all states allow medical use at this point, and nearly half have adult use aka recreational use, the feds are way behind from the start. the Schaeffer report, commissioned by Nixon in 1972 to determine what schedule to place cannabis on recommended against scheduling cannabis at all(and they immediately ignored it).

 

[Biggfoot44]

Public intoxication (drinking to excess) was illegal at the time of the founding. It is the impairment that is the problem that gets people arrested. When people are not impaired they should be able to have all their inalienable rights.

A creditable interpretation I heard recently, was Founding Era practice of disarming people on the basis of immediate and persistent * dangerous > ( damn auto correct blocks the big word )

Ie , not for the status of being A Drunk, but for waving his musket / sword / whatever Arm around at the tavern patrons While Drunk .

 

[Biggfoot44]

Yeah, but merely being intoxicated in public is an arrestable offense most places, so I don't think you're going to

.

see any changes there.

That varies hugely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction . Some places , the public intoxication per se is the offense .

Other jurisdictions, like Maryland, require other actions in combination.

19- 101 requires drunk Plus creating Public Disturbance.

6- 320 requires drunk Plus endangering others .

And often as not , obnoxious drunks would be charged with plain old Disorderly Conduct , or Open Container in public .

 

[ras_oscar]

.


That varies hugely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction . Some places , the public intoxication per se is the offense .

Other jurisdictions, like Maryland, require other actions in combination.

19- 101 requires drunk Plus creating Public Disturbance.

6- 320 requires drunk Plus endangering others .

And often as not , obnoxious drunks would be charged with plain old Disorderly Conduct , or Open Container in public .

So, public intoxication in and of itself is not illegal in MD? I know there are "drunk and disorderly" charges, I had assumed ( without backup research) that public intoxication itself was also illegal.

 

[FN509Fan]

If you can have access to booze and own a gun you can have access to weed and own a gun.

Clearly if you are a drinker, you shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.

 

[pleasant1911]

I trust a pothead with a gun more than a drunk with a gun.

 

[adit]

I trust a pothead with a gun more than a drunk with a gun.

I don't trust either.

The biggest pothead I know is an Lefty AA who hates guns, so that may have something to do with it.

 

[pleasant1911]

I don't trust either.

The biggest pothead I know is an Lefty AA who hates guns, so that may have something to do with it.

So do you think marijuana users who breaks federal laws on drug should be banned from firearms.

I don’t think marijuana usage makes one hate guns. I know non smokers that hate guns. Well I don’t know if they hate guns, like I hate criminals, but they don’t want anything to do with it.

 

[adit]

So do you think marijuana users who breaks federal laws on drug should be banned from firearms.

I don’t think marijuana usage makes one hate guns. I know non smokers that hate guns. Well I don’t know if they hate guns, like I hate criminals, but they don’t want anything to do with it.

I don't think convicted felons, including violent ones, should be prohibited from owning and possessing firearms.

If they are a danger to society then they should remain incarcerated. Once they've paid their debt, and are determined no longer a threat, their rights should be restored.

As for the Lefty, he hates guns just because he is a Lefty. The weed has no impact that I am aware of on his position on guns. I've offered to take him shooting and he has enthusiastically declined each time. I don't know if he is "officially" prohibited because of something in his past, and that is the reason for his "disinterest".

So the reason I don't trust "dopers" with guns is because they are dopers. Same thing with alcoholics.

 

[Worsley]

Hmm, wasn’t aware marijuana consumption was a constitutional right.

 

[Biggfoot44]

Splitting hairs :

From the viewpoint of someone currently buzzed on weed vs currently buzzed on booze , the MJ person is more likely to be mellow, while the drunk guy has double digit percentage of being belligerent/ fiesty .


But..... Approached from the other direction- Crazy Lefties are more predisposed to being dopers .

 

[teratos]

Stop smoking doobers!!!

 

[eruby]

Drunk/stoned, sober, fat, skinny, tall, short; if you're free to walk the streets, you're to own a gun

 

[Blacksmith101]

If stoners and drunks are banned from owning guns then they should also be banned from voting. That would cut into the Democrat majority.

 

[ras_oscar]

Since the country seems to be heading towards (eventual) legalization for adult recreations use, the control scheme for MJ should be the same as for alcohol. No carry while consuming or under the influence. I believe the present regime stems from the schedule 1 designation that anyone who has ever used MJ is guilty of a felony.

 

[MigraineMan]

Drunk/stoned, sober, fat, skinny, tall, short; if you're free to walk the streets, you're to own a gun

 

[gtodave]

It would be epic if FJB were to help dismantle both the 68GCA and 70CSA as both are unconstitutional. Hunter may be a POS, but I would rather see him go free, and the law he is charged with go away than see him go to prison, and the law stand.

FPC LOL.
View attachment 431293