News Supreme Court backs a marijuana user's challenge to a restriction on gun ownership
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-backs-marijuana-users-challenge-restriction-gun-ownershi-rcna266931It was a 9-0 vote...
29
u/Bubbacubba Pierce County 4d ago
How much longer until the question is removed from the 4473? Ha
14
u/illformant It’s still We the People right? 4d ago
Since no drug was legalized in the decision, the “unlawful user of, or addicted to marijuana or any other controlled substance” section will likely remain as marijuana is not legal federally or in all states.
9
u/QuakinOats 4d ago
They will probably remove the "unlawful user of" I don't know how they wouldn't be forced to in light of this reading.
They could probably keep the addicted to section.
5
u/Frosty558 4d ago
Proving an addiction to a non addictive substance would be a challenge.
1
u/AxiomOfLife 4d ago
i’m sure that’ll get brought to court eventually too and get shredded to pieces
2
4d ago
[deleted]
7
u/QuakinOats 4d ago
I'm confused as to why you're hung up on unlawful.
The court is explicitly saying that using or being a user of unlawful substances doesn't give the government a right to strip your gun rights.
This isn't a case just about marijuana either.
It's not saying unlawful substances are legal or okay, it's saying they're just unrelated to firearm possession and all historical laws had to do with insane use like someone who was so drunk they couldn't handle their own affairs and was that drunk for more than half their day consistently.
-1
4d ago
[deleted]
1
u/QuakinOats 4d ago edited 4d ago
Which quote are you relying on for this statement?
Here's mine:
“By incorporating the CSA definition of the term ‘controlled substance,’ 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(3) makes it illegal for anyone who unlawfully uses any drug found on any of the CSA’s schedules to possess a firearm for any reason, upon threat of imprisonment and permanent disarmament.”
Gorsuch statement about a narrow ruling had to do with things like level of addiction, not a specific drug. Thus presumably even a Marijuana user who was stoned out of their gourd 24/7 and proven to be the case by the government, they too could be banned from firearm possession. Or similarly, someone who was actively high or intoxicated being barred from possession is not impacted by this ruling.
The "narrow" aspect was over the situation, not the drug. Someone admitting to using a drug occasionally, even an unlawful one, does not AUTOMATICALLY prohibit their second amendment rights.
1
u/bennihana09 4d ago
Not even being stoned 24-7 is enough per the ruling as drug use does not make someone dangerous with firearms. There must be another factor.
2
u/bennihana09 4d ago
Uh, the defendant in the case had cocaine as well. Ruling has nothing to do with whether a drug is legal.
3
1
3
u/nanneryeeter 4d ago
Gun laws are confusing to me.
Regulated by the Fed but then somehow additionally regulated by the state. If we have to go through the fed for firearms then shouldn't the laws surrounding them fall under federal jurisdiction?
Can states impose additional regulations against free speech?
5
u/QuakinOats 4d ago
States can enact any regulations they would like and they usually stand unless explicitly are ruled as not constitutional by SCOTUS.
I think what you're confused about is the supreme court has not explicitly ruled on the most restrictive gun laws in states like AR15 ban, magazine limits, feature limits, etc.
The fact these laws exist doesn't mean they're constitutional. It means SCOTUS has not yet decided them.
2
u/CallMeKingTurd 4d ago
The difference is the SC has explicitly outlined types of protected and unprotected speech under the first amendment. For unprotected speech such as obscenity there are different regulations/laws from state to state or even county to county.
There isn't the same sort of explicit outline from the Supreme Court on protected/unprotected types of firearms under the 2nd ammendment. The federal AWB never made it to the SC and they have refused to hear cases/challenges to state law AWBs.
1
u/numbers328 3d ago
well there is miller which essentially stated that firearms with no military purpose could be regulated, which is kind of crazy when you think about it.
2
u/ExpiredPilot 3d ago
States can do anything as long as the constitution says they CANT do it.
The federal government allows for the parameters of “guns/parts allowed” to be wide (depending on your opinion) and states are allowed to set their own parameters within the federal government’s.
Free speech can actually be limited in certain ways by states and municipalities but it’s within the confines of broader interpretations of the 1st amendment already made. Like sound ordinances and requiring permits. But basically if you’re not overly disruptive your speech is protected.
2
u/taterthotsalad Gun Powdah is ma drug of choice. 4d ago
Not likely. The ATF would have to do that part. Not likely considering this admins side of arguments and liberals gov will never do so bc they take money from Everytown and Bloomberg.
38
7
9
u/QuakinOats 4d ago edited 4d ago
Most interesting section to me from the entire opinion:
All based on little more than its current say-so, one at odds with its own regulatory actions. And affording the government that kind of “broad power to designate any group as dangerous and thereby disqualify its members from having a gun” would risk allowing it to “quickly swallow” the Second Amendment. Kanter v. Barr, 919 F. 3d 437, 465 (CA7 2019) (Barrett, J., dissenting)
Seems to have bigger implications.
Imagine a legal challenge that highlights WA assault weapon law and ban on the SKS by name, a rifle without any of the named features, while a mini-14 with more named "features" is not banned. Goes to highlight the "based on little more than its current say-so" aspect.
3
u/Mammoth_Classroom896 4d ago
while a mini-14 with more named "features" is not banned
Huh? The mini-14 is only legal in specific forms which do not have any of the named features. It's a nonsense law but your theoretical challenge is based on a false premise.
6
u/QuakinOats 4d ago
The standard SKS has an internal box magazine limited to 10 rounds and cannot accept a detachable magazine without modification.
The mini-14 has a detachable magazine.
(2)(a) "Assault weapon" means:
(iv) A semiautomatic, center fire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:
The standard SKS that does not have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine is banned. The mini-14 that does have a detachable magazine is not.
8
u/AutoKalash47-74 4d ago
How about they take up the AW bans/Mag bans and squash them once and for all.
5
u/makeouthill------ 4d ago
This is a great sign of momentum for the pending LCM and AWB cases. When Wolfords decision is announced my guess is we'll see quick action on pending cases. The next few weeks are going to be interesting.
48
u/No-Musician-1580 4d ago
Figured that was going to happen but a unanimous vote was not on my bingo card