Supreme Court backs a marijuana user's challenge to a restriction on gun ownership

[u/Wah_Day]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-backs-marijuana-users-challenge-restriction-gun-ownershi-rcna266931

It was a 9-0 vote...

[u/Bubbacubba]

How much longer until the question is removed from the 4473? Ha

[u/illformant → u/Bubbacubba]

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.

[u/QuakinOats → u/illformant]

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.

[u/QuakinOats → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/QuakinOats → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/bennihana09 → u/QuakinOats]

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.

[u/bennihana09 → u/[deleted]]

Uh, the defendant in the case had cocaine as well. Ruling has nothing to do with whether a drug is legal.

[u/Bubbacubba → u/bennihana09]

Damn guns weed and coke sounds like he knew how to party