comment: >
  
  As a pothead gunnut this pleases me very much (tho I have to leave a disclaimer, be safe when handling any firearms)
context: The private prison lobby needs to be disbanded. The fact that private prisons are even a thing is insane. I bring this up because the industry actively lobbies to keep weed illegal to boost their incarceration rate - as they get paid by the state per inmate and make money off of prison labor. Private prisons are financially motivated to keep recidivism rates high - which should be the EXACT opposite of what prisons should shrive for. >
  
  Some prison contracts fine the state if incarceration rates fall below a certain percentage >
  
  Slavery is never okay. >
  
  They need to amend the 13th amendment. It bans slavery Except in prison...so if you remove the incentive to incarcerate, the whole game changes. >
  
  The fact many people don’t know this is still legally being implemented today is alarming >
  
  We need to deschedule marijuana entirely or at least lower it.
  I don't smoke pot (nor do I ever plan to) but it's nuts it's on the same level as cocaine and heroin in terms of treatment under the Controller Substances Act.
  I'll also note medical use of marijuana also prohibits firearms ownership. I don't think potheads are any worse than alcoholics, and you can still own a firearm as an alcoholic. >
  
  Same level as heroin, but cocaine is Schedule II whereas marijuana is Schedule I.  So it's treated as worse than cocaine according to that. >
  
  I’ve turned into a stoner in my mid 30s.  Helps me sleep, helps relieve stress / anxiety, no negative health effects because I only do edibles, it makes bad movies fun to watch and no hangover. >
  
  Delta-8 gummies made my alcholism just kinda fade away. There are six-packs of beer at work left over from an event and I have permission to take one if I want and I just can't even be bothered with it anymore. It's amazing. >
  
  Same experience here on the drinking. My alcohol habits weren't disastrous, but it felt like my days were 10-20% worse off because of the anxiety and hangovers.
  My desire to drink just petered out despite not actively trying to drink less. Plus it's been much easier to pause or stop the pot use when I need to. >
  
  I’m against guns but if we are going to have them I’d rather my stoner neighbors own them than my drunk ones >
  
  For me, if pot users in states where it's legalized for recreational use can own guns but not in states which haven't legalized it, that's the greater problem.
  OTOH, if potential violence is the key factor for prohibiting some felons from having guns, this could be the camel's nose in the tent for NONVIOLENT felons, e.g., fraudsters, burglars, catalytic converter thieves, perjurers, etc to regain their 2A rights. >
  
  
  if pot users in states where it's legalized for recreational use can own guns
  
  They can't. It's a federal issue. >
  
  That'd presumably require ATF to keep tabs on everyone patronizing cannabis stores. It'd be easier in states which require licensing for people accessing medical cannabis. >
  
  Every Cannabis store in my state scans my drivers license >
  
  That information is not always shared with the NICS background checkers. Medical licensees are more likely to be shared. >
  
  Its the fact that this information is collected at the first place. At the end of the day you’re not in control of where it might end up going to, or if in one way or another it ends up being leaked. 
  Once its out there, its out there. How it gets used is up to the discretion of others. >
  
  Keep in mind this ban impacted State-registered medical marijuana patients. Many folks who are just seeking relief from conditions traditional pharmaceuticals have failed to help. Not a violent or criminally inclined group. It was just an arbitrary cheap shot in the mosaic of ways the government has failed to handle cannabis policy logically and consistently. >
  
  It’s worth noting, in case it isn’t clear to everyone, that this is a ban at the federal level, and most, if not all, states where cannabis is legal have no specific prohibition on firearm sales to registered MMJ patients. In my state, which so desperately wants to be blue but can’t escape the gerrymandered abusive relationship it has with the GOP, the cannabis amendment has zero mention of firearms.
  I hope this ruling starts a chain reaction, but until cannabis is rescheduled, registered consumers will continue to be flagged on a firearm background check and will still be committing a felony (yeah, it’s bullshit) by possessing both a firearm and cannabis. >
  
  And ammunition. A cannabis user can also not possess ammunition. I know it’s dumb but it also specifies that as well. >
  
  Marijuana being illegal in the first place is just plain stupid. >
  
  It is, and sadly federal legalization may be the last step, not the next. But this at least does a little bit to abate the fact that in legal states it’s “legal but only lowercase L legal”. Ban on Employment drug testing for weed in California being another one of those steps >
  
  Marijuana and gun laws are just a pretext to confiscate firearms for petty circumstances while also turning a misdemeanor drug user into a felon. It's another law aimed at certain races than it is something designed to reduce gun deaths. >
  
  Well that law is unconstitutional for reasons having nothing to do with a historical test. I'm amazed it's been tolerated this long. 
  "Unlawful user or addicted to" is not referring to prior criminal convictions and, as written, doesn't necessarily require a charge. It's a flagrant 5th Amendment due process violation and also vague. "User" and "addicted" are not defined, nor are they separate federal offenses.
  Just a bad, bad statute with really high consequences. >
  
  The decision addresses that.  The judge found the prohibition unconstitutional on Due Process grounds. >
  
  They wanna ban pot users but not rapists, violent criminals, or even insurrectionists? >
  
  You’re more likely to get shot by a drunk person than someone high on marijuana. >
  
  It'd be fascinating to experiment with temporary confiscation of all guns from anyone convicted of DUI/DWI. I'd add DUI/DWI due to cannabis. That should be consistent with this judge's reasoning: DUI/DWI is potentially violent. >
  
  It also shows continual bad judgement. Most people who get a DUI don't get it on their first go, they usually have driven drunk many times. >
  
  I have a friend who used to be a huge pothead. He drove and worked high all the time. After a while, he began to smoke less and less, till eventually he was only smoking on his own time and maybe only once a week. One day this friend found a half a doobie in his car on his way home from work and decided to smoke it. That day he questioned all of his previous bad habits and realized how fucked up, and lucky, he had been in his previous bad habits. He no longer does stupid shit like that. Took awhile for him to realize but he did. It was indeed very bad judgement he realized after the fact. He knew what a fucking idiot he had been and has vowed to not be so stupid as he gets older and wiser.
  Lesson learned in this case I suppose. >
  
  Gay married couples should be able to protect their cannabis crop with AR-15s >
  
  I am just a step away from living a bizarre libertarian fantasy. >
  
  Taking a gamble on which of those you're missing:
  Hey. >
  
  A bottle of budwiser and a gun is more deadly than a joint and a pistol >
  
  First thing I'm going to do is shoot open a bag of doritos. >
  
  Salsa Verde, amigo 🤘 >
  
  Salsa Verde with a light dusting of gun powder, copper and lead. Yum! >
  
  Ok I'm all for gun control, but this is the dumbest idea of a group to force it on. What, someone is gonna get high and.... not wanna move to shoot up a school?? >
  
  When purchasing or registering a firearm one of the questions is about use of drugs or narcotics. Weed is specifically mentioned. So if you smoke weed and want a gun you either have to lie on a federal form (felony) or own the gun illegally (also a felony).
  So in a sense, smoking weed strips people of their constitutional right to keep and bear arms without due process of law. Since there's no legal way to do both, even though one is a guaranteed right. >
  
  The first time I bought a gun, the old timer behind the counter said something straight out of “reefer madness” concerning that line on the 4473 form. I just nodded my head, but was dying laughing inside. >
  
  Who is identified as a Marijuana user, specifically? Like how would someone be identified as a user? If someone once bought Marijuana from a dispensary does that automatically make them a user, therefore they instantly can’t own a gun? Was that were this was going? >
  
  Every time you fill out a 4473 to purchase a gun, you have to state that you are not an unlawful user of any controlled substances. And unlawful means federally, so weed counts no matter where you are.
  So currently, marijuana users who want to own funds are committing felonies by lying on that form and being a prohibited purchaser. >
  
  Alcohol is far more dangerous than marijuana. >
  
  It’s about fucking time. This law was only ever used to throw black people in prison. >
  
  
  The U.S. Department of Justice did not respond to request for comment but is likely to appeal.
  
  If so, the DoJ would be operating on bureaucratic autopilot.
  Presumably there are LOTS of pot users in states which have legalized it for recreational use who own guns w/o hassle from local or state police, though perhaps from ATF. A bit of consistency across states would be refreshing. >
  
  Now Reddit doesn't know what to think. >
  
  Reddit is like a school of fish swimming in the ocean
  Occasionally switching course bc a few decide too but most in the middle have no idea why >
  
  Finally. This was always a bullshit law. The only reason we have marijuana laws is because of skin color. >
  
  You can judge a subreddit based on how many commenters talk about California and the Black Panthers, like it wasn't the NRA and Reagan finding pretense for conservative racism. >
  
  To be fair, Reagan only signed the law, it was passed through the Democrat-controlled legislature first. In one of the CA legislative bodies, it passed by a two-thirds majority. >
  
  Should be a ban on Drunk Drivers owning guns >
  
  there is >
  
  libertarians rejoice >
  
  I get it. All those potheads out there fighting and shooting >
  
  Okay, where is the one where drug use bans on guns is unconstitutional? >
  
  I totally agree! >
  
  Right outcome, wrong path.  This supposedly leaves judges deciding which scheduled drugs warrant removing gun rights instead of the legislature or regulatory body.
  Deschedule and decriminalization fixes this properly. >
  
  As it should. Guns and alcohol are a much bigger problem.. >
  
  I would say that neither marijuana nor alcohol should be mixed with guns, but this ruling doesn’t talk about using them at the same time, it states that people who smoke can’t be barred from owning firearms regardless of whether or not you smoke at the same time you use your firearm. >
  
  Seems like a sound decision >
  
  I’m so happy this was the only think stopping me from getting my Medical card. >
  
  Well it certainly is >
  
  I agree. >
  
  If the idea is to ban marijuana users because their judgment is impaired when high, please go ahead as long as you are consistent and ban alcohol users too. >
  
  Tell that to PA. >
  
  Means fpsrussia is coming back? >
  
  Holy shit, I hadn’t thought about that. That would be a hilarious side effect of this ruling. >
  
  Whos going to tell the ATF? >
  
  Wouldn't you want to ban anyone who drinks alcohol from owning guns first? They're obviously far more dangerous. >
  
  You don’t hear about cannabis-fueled rampages very…..ever. >
  
  Well if domestic abusers can have guns I don't see why marijuana users can't. The law was probably put in place by people who know more black people have been convicted of marijuana possession. >
  
  
  Well if domestic abusers can have guns
  
  legally they can't >
  
  "New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, announced a new test for assessing firearms laws, saying restrictions must be "consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."
  On Thursday, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals cited that decision in declaring unconstitutional a federal law barring people under domestic violence restraining orders from owning firearms." >
  
  You’re talking about a DVRO, not someone who’s been convicted of domestic violence offenses. Anyone can get a DVRO against someone without any proof whatsoever. I don’t think any of this means what you think it means. >
  
  Many women have been killed by men they had restraining orders against. The law is there for a reason. >
  
  And those restraining orders had hearings before a judge who made a determination that allow those restrictions. DVRO’s do not do that they’re just automatically issued any time there is a charge. It’s a violation of due process, and everyone who believes in our laws should be against that. >
  
  For background the ACLU helped pay for the appeal and had published many statements opposing the law.
  If you aren’t gun aware, the court cases where the ACLU joins forces with 2a groups are usually a good minimum threshold for “holy shit this law is problematic” >
  
  
  If you aren’t gun aware, the court cases where the ACLU joins forces with 2a groups are usually a good minimum threshold for “holy shit this law is problematic”
  
  Exactamundo. The ACLU is notoriously gun rights phobic, hell, their official stance is that the 2A is a collective right, and not an individual one. So having them come in is a real litmus test for "Some politician realllllly screwed the pooch here". 
  I remember there was one case in particular regarding an Obama era policy involving the VA and service members being stripped of their rights if they requested assistance with medical paperwork. 
  The media played it up as "So and so wants mental cases and crazy people to own guns!". >
  
  It was Social Security recipients who had representative payees, which means they can’t handle their own finances for one reason or another. I think that most people would agree that an inability to responsibly handle money is not an indication of violent tendencies. >
  
  Suggest banning guns for sex offenders especially child rapists and watch the conservatives cry
  "Child fuckers deserve protection too!" >
  
  Good. If alcohol and taking ampehtaimies, benzos, muscle relaxers and every other mind altering drug is allowed, marijuana should be no different. >
  
  Good >
  
  About time >
  
  Cool. Now do alcohol users, a far more violent cohort.
  Edit: typo >
  
  I think you got it backwards >
  
  I’m confused but perhaps I’m simple. Are you saying that those under the influence of marijuana are more violent than those under the influence of alcohol? Because that’s the exact opposite of what I posited. Also opposite of reality. >
  
  I was pointing out the judge declared the ban on marijuana users from owning guns was unconstitutional. Nobody should be carrying or even touching a firearm while under the influence of anything. Alcohol definitely causes more violence. >
  
  Ah. Yes. Agreed! >
  
  “Pot is a better drug than alcohol. I’ll prove it to you. You’re at a ball game or a concert, and someone’s really violent and aggressive and obnoxious, are they drunk or are they smoking pot?”
  
  Bill Hicks >
  
  That ban is so stupid. Non American here, what was their reasoning for stopping weed smokers owning guns? >
  
  Weed is still federally illegal and still classified as a schedule 1 narcotic. So under that premise in the eyes of the federal government medical users are drug addicts ( even with a dr's certification) which is a disqualifier to legal gun ownership. Its dumb as fuck especially considering well over half the country has legalized marijuana in some form or fashion. >
  
  Wait, what? Letting the government chip away at a so-called "right" without formally amending the Constitution resulted in a whole bunch of Good, Harmless People losing those rights for a very long time? Whaaaaaaaa? HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE.
  ...is what the gun control crowd most certainly won't wake up and wrestle with in any meaningful way. >
  
  The article doesn’t specify…. Does the law prohibit SPECIFICALLY marijuana users from owning guns? Or is it a general ban on convicted felons owning guns? >
  
  Yes. Whenever you buy a gun you fill out form 4473, one of the questions is “are you an addict or user of an illicit substance”, several years ago a note was added to clarify that yes this includes MJ users in states where it is legal at the state level. Lying on that form is a felony.
  Possession of weed and a firearm is a federal crime as well. No other crime need be committed. Even in a “free” state.
  Felons, including felons convicted for weed, are still prohibited persons, regardless of the ruling. >
  
  While I fully support this ruling, I see a lot of "if alcoholics...". The fact is that alcoholics face the same criticism of marijuana users. The question on the form is the same and if any felonies related to alcohol are present, you can't own. Or misdemeanor domestic violence. >
  
  
  The question on the form is the same and if any felonies related to alcohol are present, you can't own.
  
  The difference is no doctor is prescribing otherwise healthy people "medical alcohol" cards. 
  One is plainly an addictive substance with little medical application, the other has burgeoning medical applications. >
  
  Republicans - Not like that! >
  
  
  "On Thursday, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals cited [the same Supreme Court] decision in declaring unconstitutional a federal law barring people under domestic violence restraining orders from owning firearms."
  
  Can now have guns:
  ✓ Marijuana users
  ✓ Domestic abusers >
  
  
  ✓ Domestic abusers
  
  Incorrect. >
  
  Actually, in an advanced, reasoning and civilized society, I would think that a ban on owning guns is constitutional whilst a ban on marijuana is not. >
  
  If anyone needs to not have a gun is cocaine users. Next the drunks.  Then toddlers. >
  
  A veiled law from the beginning. Wonder why they didn't say the quiet part out loud. >
  
  Technically wouldn't any law restricting felons from owning guns be unconstitutional? >
  
  Fortunately still banned for POC!
  /s >
  
  Yeah cuz the gun owners who smoke weed are so much more dangerous lol >
  
  I’m not against, guns besides either way if you try and eradicate them, someone somewhere will possess them and possibly not have the best intentions >
  
  If some states going to allow domestic abusers to have guns... Why not? >
  
  Kinda ironic because when I get stoned I definitely wouldn't have a gun in my hand. Sorry not sorry that I don't get pleasure from holding an object that's only purpose is murder. >
  
  Now do the federal ban on marijuana. >
  
  Here's the actual decision.  There are some interesting takeaways here.  First off,
  
  As for the Second Amendment, Harrison argues he has the right to possess a firearm and that § 922(g)(3) infringes upon that right. Relying primarily on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, Harrison argues that the Second Amendment’s plain text covers his conduct (possessing a handgun), and that the government cannot affirmatively prove that restrictions like § 922(g)(3) are part of the historical traditions that define the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms. 
  
  The GCA was passed almost two centuries after the founding, so it doesn't pass the basic test of historical tradition.
  The court also addresses the due-process problems:
  
  But § 922(g)(3) is quite different from even modern felon-in-possession statutes. For starters, the laws significantly differ in the process by which one is deprived of the right to armed self-defense. Section 922(g)(1), the modern federal felon-in-possession provision, only prohibits possession of a firearm after an individual has been convicted of a felony offense
  
  Then there's this, which could pave a pathway to non-violent felons to regain gun rights:
  
  There  is  no  historical  tradition  of  disarming  a  person solely based  on that person having engaged in felonious conduct. 
  
  (...)
  
  It  was  not  until  1961—just  fifteen  years  before  the  adoption  of  the  ordinances  invalidated  in  Heller—that  Congress  dropped  the  crime-of-violence  requirement  from  federal  law.  The  1961  Amendments  to  the  FFA  replaced  the  then-existing  category  of  prohibited persons, those convicted of a “crime of violence,” with a prohibition on persons who  had  previously  been  convicted  of  a  “crime  punishable  by  imprisonment  for  a  term  exceeding  one  year.”  Thus,  it  was  not  until  1961  that  Congress,  for  the  first  time,  prohibited persons from receiving a firearm solely on the basis of the person having been convicted of a felony, regardless of whether the felony conviction signified that the person exhibited a likelihood of future violence or force
  
  In summation,
  
  Total prohibitions on the right to possess a firearm merely on the basis of a person being a user of marijuana do not fall within the tradition of disarming persons  who  have  demonstrated  their  dangerousness  through  past  violent,  forceful, or threatening conduct.
  
  It's going to be an interesting couple of years while we see how these things hash out. >
  
  I'm a medical patient in my state that doesn't allow you to own guns. Never been a 2a person but growing up on a farm it was strange to have to give my dad's gun to my BIL. >
  
  i smoke pot and have a handgun around here somewhere. >
  
  
  Wyrick said that while the government can protect the public from dangerous people possessing guns, it could not argue Jared Harrison's "mere status as a user of marijuana justifies stripping him of his fundamental right to possess a firearm." He said using marijuana was "not in and of itself a violent, forceful, or threatening act," and noted that Oklahoma is one of a number of states where the drug, still illegal under federal law, can be legally bought for medical uses.
  
  I own a gun and keep it on me regularly, but I don't use or possess marijuana.
  If I want to hang out with friends or drive anyone around in my car, I have to leave my gun because most people I know use and carry marijuana regularly. So just having them in the car with weed can get both/all of us a felony if we get stopped while I have a gun.
  It's awesome to see this law getting scrapped. >
  
  I'd never own guns myself but it's stupid that I can't because I smoke weed in the evening to help me get to sleep. Like what the actual fuck? If someone can get stupid drunk and violent and be allowed to have a gun, my chill ass should be able to have one too if I wanted. >
  
  War on drugs, Nancy Reagan legacy. >
  
  Waiting for them to propose people using alcohol to be banned from owning guns; let alone using them. Probably 20x more deaths from people using alcohol and guns. 🇺🇸🗽⚖️🏡🗳🌍 >
  
  The last thing I would want to do when high is to shoot someone. I'd actually ask the guy I'd shoot to smoke with me instead. People who pass these laws probably never smoked before.