This sounds like an attempt to prevent black people from owning guns, in the same way a marijuana conviction has kept them from owning dispensaries.
I know white people smoke pot, but they don’t usually try to make laws to keep white people down in the same way.
You are exactly right in how this law has been used. However, this case is looking to overturn that and set a precidedent for allowing marijuana users to own guns.
I’m inclined to entirely agree though the abject hypocrisy (I know, par for the course of conservatives) will be through the roof if the individuals who staked their entire personality on “we can’t restrain gun ownership in any remote way because the plain-text of the constitution” find pot usage to be the only acceptable background check.
TBF, I think the people smoking pot should be the ONLY ones allowed to have guns, much more laid back.
They can have it once it’s empty.
Great, they’ll prohibit it, and then we’ll have a lot of stressed out gun owners.
It’s already prohibited. This case is aiming to change that and permit marijuana users to own guns.
I’ll take any form of gun control at this point
What if I irregularly smoke pot?
Only can own ARs then
Like upside down? Or in a funny hat?
Watch as the GOP takes away gun rights from a sizable portion of their own pot smoking, 2A glazing base… and none will waiver their support.
Like clockwork, they get mad for all of 3 seconds, then they remember the GOP is leading the genocide against brown people and LGBTQ+ people, then they forget anything happened at all.
It’s already illegal. This is a challenge to restore those rights.
Pot snokers may be on the fence about you coming for their guns, but gun owners are gonna get real mad about you coming for their weed
snokers
IS THERE SOME WAY OF IMBIBING WEED THAT I AM NOT AWARE OF AND WHAT IS IT
Snoking is like smoking but with an enya.
Oh you ain’t ready to snoke yet my son
Feels like alcohol should be higher in priority over weed when it comes to anger issues
deleted by creator
Logically, yes, but this court doesn’t need logic where it is going…
recovering alcoholic here who has had guns, this comment is spot on. I smoke pot as well, never had an issue when high, but have been stupid with guns while drunk.
Came here for this: which of the substances makes you more likely to play Russian roulette?
The amount of accidents with guns and blood alcohol concentration must be fairly high.
One of the biggest potheads I know is a right wing trumpet with TONS of guns. The irony would be pretty sweet I gotta say.
I think you’re a little mixed up. It is currently illegal for a regular pot smoker to own guns. The supreme court is looking at potentially getting rid of that restriction. So if they did, I think it would actually reenforce your friend’s love of Trump.
Fuck, I clearly only read the headline and inferred that they’d be looking for an excuse to take guns seat in states where it’s legal (mostly but not all bluer states).
And to add more to this, the plaintiff is from Texas.
Scotus will likely overturn this
I very much doubt it was doing much to help anyway. The rich fuckers who can afford both guns and weed are gonna do it either way.
Far out man.
They’re just trying to find other ways to take guns from leftists and trans people.
Also, since pot is federally illegal, and legal states don’t normally give the feds buyer info, how the hell would they even know? A form asking if you smoke pot? What stops someone from just saying they don’t?
A form asking if you smoke pot?
Yes, that’s exactly what already happens. The form in question is ATF 4473 for purchasing a firearm, and it is a federal crime to lie on that form. As far as the ATF is concerned, it does not matter if weed has been legalized in your state or not, or if it’s for medicinal purposes or recreational.
As of now, you cannot own a firearm if you are “an unlawful user of, or addicted to” pot or any other banned substance. This has rarely been enforced, and it’s hard to bring enough evidence to actually prove it. Were they a user when they bought it? A user an hour later? A month later? How do you even prove that in court?
The few times it’s been prosecuted, it’s usually one thing in a pile of more serious charges.
If the Supremes rule against it, then it’s just the status quo. Nobody can really prove it. There is some reason to think they’ll strike this down.
How is this legal? Even as someone who knows much tighter gun control would save thousands of lives, if they haven’t been committed then it doesn’t matter.
If they have been committed, then it would be legal/fair, although I might disagree
It’s legal because that’s what the law says. Arguably unconstitutional, but that’s what bringing it to the Supreme Court is supposed to be for. Nobody has really pushed this in front of the courts before.
I think the answer lies in the Hunter Biden charges. They can ask the question when purchasing a firearm and then charge with a crime later if they can show that the person lied.
Honestly wouldn’t be shocked if they started going after recreational marijuana either. Some big liberal states have legal marijuana.
. . . if they can show that the person lied.
That’s the hard part, and the reason why it doesn’t get enforced.
Its not difficult to prove if you have a medicinal cannabis card. Not at all. All your purchases are prescribed and tracked.
Were you using it when you bought the gun? How long ago did you imbibe before then? What even is the time limit? Does your use count as addiction?
Is a federal prosecutor going to bother even pursuing those questions if they have to prove it in front of a judge and jury?
There’s so many ways a defense attorney could pick the case apart. They’re generally not going to prosecute this as the primary charge.
The ambiguity serves their cause. I expected for them to give a vague ruling that keeps people worried. The nazis running the government want fear, uncertainty, and doubt because it makes people easier to control. This ruling will be “Sure, go ahead, we prob won’t disappear you and your family for no reason at all, trust us, and stay in line”
it is a federal crime to lie on that form
But are you really lying when you think or feel you’re answering truthfully?
I.e., what is regular? Once a month? Once a week? These seem more “occasional” than “regular”. And even at 3+ times per week, in “regular” territory, what if you stop?
Are you still a regular smoker if you’ve been clean for a month? Two months? Three or four? Six or a year?
Of course, this is all under the assumption they don’t just get ICE’d or Venezuela-boated.
Yeah, I suppose my point is that it’s very difficult to prove in court (especially the “regularly” part), and something would likely have to happen alongside the charge for it to be investigated in the first place. In other words, it seems like mostly theater, although it would be another tool to further charge any leftists that smoke pot in the future.
Mostly, yes. That said, a change would actually be less of a problem for leftists arming up.
My local weed store tracks user’s purchases. I think every store i know of in NJ does.
Well, sure, but that doesn’t automatically mean the ATF has access to that.
They can buy that info from data traffickers.
Yep, it was this stupid bullshit that they got Hunter Biden on for his illegal owning of a firearm.
In the past, the Supreme Court has ruled that penalising someone for failing to file or omitting information on a form which would incriminate them violates Amendment 5.
The case was regarding a tax imposed on gambling. People who ran gambling operations had to pay a tax of 10% of the amounts wagered and register with the IRS. At this time, gambling was illegal (almost) nationwide. The IRS then made those registration records available to gaming authorities, who would use them to prosecute anyone who registered.
The court ruled that forcing them to register and then providing this information to gaming authorities to prosecute people violated Amendment 5, and thus a person so convicted for failing to register could assert an Amendment 5 privilege against conviction.
Edit: Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39
the question on the form is not temporally bound; it asks if you are currently using. i read it as “are you smoking while filling the form out?”
the answer is always “no.”
I have heard (not sure) that at least here in California, the rule applies to using pot in the past year, or maybe it was 5 years. I expect it is written down somewhere.
it’s a fed form no? iirc it doesn’t say a time range other than “current”?
It doesn’t even say that. It says:
Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana
or other stuff. It does not define “user”.
that’s it. yep. while ambiguity on a form gives leeway to the person who did not write it, this is still pretty clear to me. user of? (using while filling out form?) “addicted to”? ask any drunk they’ll tell you they’re not an addict. 😉
While that might be how you interpret it, I’m sure a court would disagree.
that’s my whole point. :)
Idk maybe it’s documented some other place or the dealer is supposed to explain it. I’ve never dealt with the process myself.
This is already the law, they are actually looking to overturn it. Despite having used it to prosecute Hunter Biden.
Yeah, makes sense from that perspective.
Fraud charges.
I guess, but “regularly” is hard to prove in court, or at least it was before 2025. Also before 2025, something would have to happen for you to be investigated for that in the first place. I’m sure now they’ll just make up a reason to investigate pot smokers.
I do wonder how it would go over in court now. In a jury trial, the prosecution would likely still have to prove that you “regularly” smoke pot, right?
I suppose my point is that it probably won’t be very effective in stopping pot smokers from owning guns (especially those that already own guns) if it’s just a yes/no on a form.
The way the law works currently it’s just a mechanism to remove gun rights from people and to tack on extra bullshit charges to anyone who happens to get caught with a little weed and also owns guns. Sincerely hope they can actually change this law because it is almost entirely used for bullshit.
the gop hardon for weed+jailtime, to feed into the forprofit system, in order to get kickbacks plus use the prison population as part of the census.
NO ONE IN THIS COMMENT SECTION READ PAST THE HEADLINE.
Everyone here is assuming they’re trying to outlaw this. It is already outlawed. They’re looking to overturn it.
Everyone here is assuming they’re trying to outlaw this. It is already outlawed. They’re looking to overturn it.
WHO is trying to overturn it? Did YOU read the article?
Remember that the supreme court often picks up a case after a back and forth, and that the previous ‘last stop’ of the case helps determine what’s going on. The previous court had voided the law, and now dump and co. are trying to revive the case. So if the supreme court was fine with ‘legalizing it’ they could have done so by dint of letting the lower court’s ruling lie. Maybe, just maybe, the supreme court is doing what it is supposed to do when lower courts disagree with each other on rulings, but let’s be honest, do you think this supreme court cares about anything but helping the conservative pushes? If it gets more laws that can be used against non-wasps, they’ll slap down some ai generated bullshit faster than thomas can get in an rv.
I’m hoping it’s mostly europeans, I feel like most americans with any exposure to gun culture should already know about this being illegal.
The assessment should consider ALL mind altering substances the gun owner consumes. Beer, weed, medications. Self-reporting isn’t great, but better than nothing.
Wonderful, set precedent that the 2nd amendment is totally subject to the whim of the president. Then let’s flip all of government in 2028 and work on fixing this gun problem once and for all.
i’m all for better gun laws, and I speak as someone who owns multiple and yet still does not trust the 2nd amendment anyway. I think we should be reminding folks that “amendments” don’t mean shit, and we need legit common sense laws.
and a separation of concerns when it comes to what a gov can and cannot do. eg: laws won’t stop ppl from owning guns, but mental health/healthcare WILL stop people from causing harm.
gotta be careful with the wording, because “common sense” has such a broad meaning that it can be used by fascist to distort reality.
true!! i mean logical. my bad.
Well that’s not the case though. It’s up to interpretation by the Supreme Court. This is nothing new
