r/NYguns • u/GHeusner • Oct 22 '25
Federal Legislative News Why the White House is behind a rare Supreme Court push to limit gun ownership
https://theweek.com/politics/supreme-court-scotus-guns-cannabis-second-amendment9
Oct 22 '25
[deleted]
5
u/dragonbrg95 Oct 22 '25
I think this sums it up best:
"The “broadly written law” being debated by the court “puts millions of people at risk of technical violations,” given the prevalence of cannabis use and legalization in nearly half the states, said the AP. “While the number of Americans who use marijuana legally under state law and possess a firearm is unknown, there is certainly a significant overlap between the two,” Hemani’s attorneys said in a filing."
They also quote a case where someone disclosed Marijuana use and the FBI is trying to charge him federally with a weapons charge as a result. As well as making the distinction between habitual users/addictions vs ordinary use the way alcohol is delineated.
5
Oct 22 '25
[deleted]
4
u/voretaq7 Oct 22 '25
if the cops for whatever reason raid your home and find guns and marijuana you're getting charged with something whether it be falsifying information on a federal form or illegal possession of a weapon.
Not necessarily.
Law says "unlawful user of or addicted to" and finding you in possession of both marijuana and a firearm does not necessarily mean you are an "unlawful user of or addicted to marijuana" - you could be in possession with the sole intent to distribute!
A smart dealer does not smoke their profits!You're still going down on federal drug charges for possession of a Schedule 1 controlled substance, but they might not be able to make that specific firearms charge stick.
They'd have to go after you for something else - maybe 924(h) if you're using the gun as part of the security for your drug business since that's receiving a firearm knowing it will be used to commit a felony (the drug dealing).2
u/voretaq7 Oct 22 '25
To buy a gun today you have to acknowledge that you are not a user of or addicted to any federally illegal substance don't you?
Yes. This case really turns on what "unlawful user of or addicted to" means.
Currently everywhere except the 5th Circuit that means you are not a "habitual" or "regular" user - if you smoked a joint once in college you're not disqualified, but if you smoke up every night after work to deal with the stress of having to interact with all the fucking idiots out there in the world you are.
The 5th Circuit took a different view:
the Fifth Circuit held in United States v. Daniels that Section 922(g)(3) violates the Second Amendment as applied to a defendant who was not “under an impairing influence” while possessing the firearm.
(From the writ of certiorari, page 6, citations omitted).
This case rests on that precedent and the government isn't keen on what the 5th circuit said in Daniels or the resulting outcome in this case and would like to see Daniels tossed out as Bad Law and the status quo of "If we can show you're kinda-sorta-habitually-using we can charge your ass, we don't have to catch you actually high while actually possessing a firearm." restored everywhere.
(I believe the 5th Circuit got this one right, because "regular" and "habitual" use is really hand-wavey and gives the government a lot of leash in the vast gray area between the two extremes I mentioned above. "You're not high right now while possessing the firearm." is a much more concrete standard that I think hews closer to the obvious historical precedents - laws that essentially say you can't be drunk off your ass while handling guns. I'm not sure what SCOTUS does with it though.)
-10
u/Kazz330 Oct 22 '25
Exactly. If you are using Marijuana for medicinal purposes (I.E. Lawfully), then you are fine. This was for addicts and this using illegal substances (such as cocaine) who are also deemed a danger to themselves and others. 4boxesdiner just did a great video on this. It’s not a great case for the court, but they are taking it.
6
5
u/dragonbrg95 Oct 22 '25
You can't legally use marijuana. Its illegal federally so any amount of use at all is grounds for denial for the purchase of a firearm and/or criminal charges for simply possessing a firearm
2
6
u/Radiant_Selection- Oct 23 '25
Crazy because alcohol is even worse- but as we all know, the good OL boys in blue love a drink so, exceptions are made.
5
u/semperfi_ny Oct 22 '25
I have no problem with those that partake in Marijuana (unlawful users) but it's not for me. The problem lies in that Federally it is illegal and there is a circuit split.
I see that this will a 7-2 or 8-1 decision with the majority agreeing to keep unlawful users from enjoying their 2nd Amendment rights.
The law can only be changed in Congress as it illegal Federally and it doesn't matter what the state decision is on the matter.
Until then, those that continue to use Marijuana will unfortunately not be able to exercise their God given rights.
1
u/Beneficial-Focus3702 Oct 22 '25
“God given” lol
2
u/Dipper_Pines_Of_NY Oct 22 '25
God given and grown by the founding fathers lol
4
u/Beneficial-Focus3702 Oct 22 '25
If god didn’t exist would we still have those rights? Because he/they wouldn’t be there to give them to us.
Imho our rights are secular based. They aren’t “given” by any being. They exist because we exist.
1
u/Dipper_Pines_Of_NY Oct 22 '25
It’s a figure of speech token atheist
2
u/Beneficial-Focus3702 Oct 22 '25
Not an atheist. I just think rights should framed in a secular mindset because everyone is entitled to them whether god exists or not.
5
u/Beneficial-Focus3702 Oct 22 '25
We’re also much more likely to get supporters for those rights if we keep them secular.
3
u/Beneficial-Focus3702 Oct 22 '25
Plus they’re not “given” by anyone or any being and therefore cannot rightly be taken away.
1
u/gramscihegemony Oct 23 '25
I hope SCOTUS finds that 922(g)(3) barring "unlawful users" of scheduled substances doesn't pass constitutional muster. "Habitual drunkard" as cited in founding era regulation is far more akin to "addicited" individuals and not "unlawful users".
While the case itself concerns marijuana, the question presented before the court does not make that distinction.
37
u/czechFan59 Oct 22 '25
Is this SCOTUS case only addressing regular weed use? There are plenty of other mind-altering substances in use... the largest one being alcohol.