gun ban on MJ users is unconstitutional.

noway2

noway2

Senior Member
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
Joined
Dec 16, 2016
Messages
21,592
Location
Onboard the mothership
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
www.benzinga.com

Federal Court: Gun Ban On Marijuana Users Unconstitutional In A New Texas Ruling

Recent Second Amendment cases have set a precedent for stricter scrutiny of gun restrictions, presenting mounting challenges for the U.S.
www.benzinga.com www.benzinga.com

Recent Second Amendment cases have set a precedent for stricter scrutiny of gun restrictions, presenting mounting challenges for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in its defense of the gun ban on cannabis users in multiple courts.

A New Case​

A federal court has ruled once again that it is unconstitutional to prohibit gun possession for individuals who use marijuana.

As first reported by Marijuana Moment in a victory for El Paso, Texas, Paola Connelly admitted to being a cannabis user. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas granted a motion for reconsideration of her case and ultimately dismissed the charges against her for possessing and transferring a firearm in 2021.
Click to expand...
The article says this may pave the way to make it unlawful to prohibit gun possession over controlled substances of all kinds.
 
It does raise a good question, why is weed OK but heroine is not? Both are schedule I drugs (the most dangerous). Cocaine should be a no brainer since it’s a schedule II drug.

Orrrrr are we finally going to revise our drug schedules to align with true danger rather than using it to bolster prosecutorial power.
 
noway2 said:
www.benzinga.com

Federal Court: Gun Ban On Marijuana Users Unconstitutional In A New Texas Ruling

Recent Second Amendment cases have set a precedent for stricter scrutiny of gun restrictions, presenting mounting challenges for the U.S.
www.benzinga.com www.benzinga.com


The article says this may pave the way to make it unlawful to prohibit gun possession over controlled substances of all kinds.
Click to expand...

How many categorical bans on gun possession do you think existed in the Founding Era? Correct - zero is probably a very, very good guess.

When the Second Amendment was ratified, anybody with enough money (or goods to barter) could have a gun -without a government permission slip of any sort- and could carry it most anywhere and any way they wished. If Bruen is honestly applied by the lower courts, nearly all restrictions on guns will disappear.
 
US v Harrison [Oklahoma] was decided back on 3 Feburary 23 and drew a similar conclusion eg. denying drug [cannabis] users doesn't make sense

A link to the full decision is below - the judge gave a bunch of historical context and made some very good points; the gov/t arguments were weak at best
 

Attachments

  • US v Harrison.pdf
    402.3 KB · Views: 1
gc70 said:
How many categorical bans on gun possession do you think existed in the Founding Era? Correct - zero is probably a very, very good guess.

When the Second Amendment was ratified, anybody with enough money (or goods to barter) could have a gun -without a government permission slip of any sort- and could carry it most anywhere and any way they wished. If Bruen is honestly applied by the lower courts, nearly all restrictions on guns will disappear.
Click to expand...
To be fair, the same was true of owning other human beings and all that entailed.
 
Diablos said:
The constitution was amended (the process ignored by all that call for "gun control"), as it would almost assuredly end in shame/failure for the moms/brady crowd
Click to expand...
Indeed it was, and indeed it would, those are much better arguments.
 
As somebody who hates weed but likes freedom. Good

If you wanted to do something to control guns using marijuana, start prosecuting these people that are driving around hot boxing. 2 or 3 driving while intoxicated charges can be prosecuted as felony. gun rights gone. driving license gone. freedom of mobility gone. just good little wards of the state, dependent on handouts. as is intended.

Oh, wait... that would be racist because of the disproportionate impact...
 
Shall not be infringed. (Unless you’re a drug user).


Want to change the second then change the amendment.
 
Slimer said:
Dave's not here AFT Man.
Click to expand...
iu



All a bunch of dangerous thugs, ya know. No, I'm not talking about pot heads.
 
Last edited:
Diablos said:
How about we do away with prohibition and end the cartels and governments power (sorry to repeat myself there)
Click to expand...


Sorry but that one won't float. Ending the prohibition might end the cartels power(read that money) but it will only increase the governments power(read that taxes).
 
Most schedule 1 drugs will kill you.
Weed makes people kill Doritos. (Remember if they change the Schedule of on the drugs big Pharma loses billions.)

Its become legal in so many states now and thats not gonna go away.
 
GymB said:
To be fair, the same was true of owning other human beings and all that entailed.
Click to expand...
Me. said:
When the Second Amendment came into being you could also own people without permission from the gov.

And those people couldn't own guns.

The founding documents were not some fairy-tale of freedom for all.
Click to expand...

The fact that chattel slavery was legal when our country was founded is unrelated to the Second Amendment's scope and meaning.

However, you may feel better after the obligatory detour to virtue signal about the faults of the Constitution and Founding Fathers.

Back on topic - the Bruen standard should not allow many gun control laws to survive simply because there were very few such laws when the Second Amendment was ratified.
 
gc70 said:
The fact that chattel slavery was legal when our country was founded is unrelated to the Second Amendment's scope and meaning.

However, you may feel better after the obligatory detour to virtue signal about the faults of the Constitution and Founding Fathers.

Back on topic - the Bruen standard should not allow many gun control laws to survive simply because there were very few such laws when the Second Amendment was ratified.
Click to expand...
@Diablos provided a much better response, it didn’t rely upon an unproven assertion or attempt to dismiss the argument through insult.
 
GymB said:
@Diablos provided a much better response, it didn’t rely upon an unproven assertion or attempt to dismiss the argument through insult.
Click to expand...

I feel obliged to call out gratuitous and unwarranted criticism of the Constitution.

Decades ago, leftists started using the "But slavery!" argument whenever possible to attack the Constitution and Founding Fathers through guilt by association. That was -and is- a scurrilous practice that has spread through repetition and the apparent need of some to declare their opposition to a moral wrong.
 
Last edited:
gc70 said:
I feel obliged to call out gratuitous and unwarranted criticism of the Constitution.

Decades ago, leftists started using the "But slavery!" argument whenever possible to attack the Constitution and Founding Fathers through guilt by association. That was -and is- a scurrilous practice that has spread through repetition and the apparent need of some to declare their opposition to a moral wrong.
Click to expand...
You know me well enough to know that I have plenty of such compulsions of my own!
 
I am not a pot user (that stuff stinks!) but when compared to alcohol in damage to the body … addictiveness … etc is it any worse? States that have made it legal and tax it have done fairly well (Commiefornia made over $500 million last year while Colorado made over $300 million in taxes from pot shops). The more “weird” and progressive cities a state has the higher potential revenue the state has … NC w/ Asheville, Commie Hill, Charlotte, all of Durham County, etc would likely be $100-$200 million.
 
NCFubar said:
I am not a pot user (that stuff stinks!) but when compared to alcohol in damage to the body … addictiveness … etc is it any worse? States that have made it legal and tax it have done fairly well (Commiefornia made over $500 million last year while Colorado made over $300 million in taxes from pot shops). The more “weird” and progressive cities a state has the higher potential revenue the state has … NC w/ Asheville, Commie Hill, Charlotte, all of Durham County, etc would likely be $100-$200 million.
Click to expand...
But the alcohol producers and distributors have very very strong lobbying efforts, they really want to remain the exclusive legal intoxicant.
 
Me. said:
When the Second Amendment came into being you could also own people without permission from the gov.

And those people couldn't own guns.


The founding documents were not some fairy-tale of freedom for all.
Click to expand...
Chattel slavery existed before the Constitution. There was a push to outlaw slavery in the Constitution; however the realpolitik of the day made it clear the slave holding states would not ratify it with an outright ban. The much-maligned 3/5ths rule was put in to diminish the influence of slave states by reducing their representation in Congress. To attempt to damn the Constitution because of the pre-existing institution of slavery, and by extension the 2nd Amendment shows either a lack of knowledge about the founding document od a blatant disregard of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom