Ban on Marijuana Users Owning Guns is Unconstitutional

[kshaw]

Interesting ruling:

Ban on marijuana users owning guns is unconstitutional, judge rules

Lawyers argued second amendment right was violated by law that makes it illegal for ‘unlawful users of controlled substances’ to possess firearms

www.theguardian.com

 

[Waingro]

 

[SkiPatrolDude]

Yeah, no brainer.

That won't stop a bunch of FUDDS on here from making the argument against it, though.

 

[Afrikeber]

If you can have access to booze and own a gun you can have access to weed and own a gun. From a historical context colonists and indigenous peoples smoked and used hemp so it meets the SCOTUS test.

https://www.veriheal.com/blog/how-our-founding-fathers-used-cannabis-in-colonial-america/

 

[Occam]

Access to is definitely different than being under the influence while carrying/hunting etc. But regardless - isn't this a bit academic as long as the drug is federally illegal in the first place, and you need to assert you're not a law breaker on your 4473? I don't see how a state's permissiveness undoes a federal statute, especially as it relates to passing a federal background check. In practical terms, I don't see how to reconcile this until congress passes a new federal statute and the POTUS signs it.

 

[MrNIceGuy1989]

FINALLY

Interesting ruling:

Ban on marijuana users owning guns is unconstitutional, judge rules

Lawyers argued second amendment right was violated by law that makes it illegal for ‘unlawful users of controlled substances’ to possess firearms

www.theguardian.com

Finally

 

[Roro]

Yeah, no brainer.































That won't stop a bunch of FUDDS on here from making the argument against it, though.















Don't worry. I'm sure if you start getting any comments that don't fit your thinking you'll run off to the water cooler with this

 

[Sticky]

Already being discussed here...

https://www.mdshooters.com/threads/federal-legalization-of-marijuana.258386/unread

 

[Vile Shadow]

Ya but not everybody can see that one

 

[Sticky]

Ya but not everybody can see that one

Didn't realize that one was in a limited view area..

 

[6-Pack]

Access to is definitely different than being under the influence while carrying/hunting etc. But regardless - isn't this a bit academic as long as the drug is federally illegal in the first place, and you need to assert you're not a law breaker on your 4473? I don't see how a state's permissiveness undoes a federal statute, especially as it relates to passing a federal background check. In practical terms, I don't see how to reconcile this until congress passes a new federal statute and the POTUS signs it.

Same reason the state used to make us prove a G&S reason to get a carry permit - Bruen laid out a new test. I said last July that this wouldn’t be upheld under Bruen. Sure, it can remain illegal federally, but the THT test laid out in Bruen won’t allow marijuana to be a disqualification for firearm purchase/ownership.

 

[wpage]

Until the Fed legalizes good luck...

States will run thier course in rulings. However, who runs the NIC's system and other Alpha agencies?

 

[Occam]

Same reason the state used to make us prove a G&S reason to get a carry permit

Not really a good analogy. MD’s G&S blocked everyone and filtered for special cases. The feds will keep disapproving NICs while processing those 4473s - because it’s still a crime. This ruling doesn’t change that.

 

[Matlack]

Isn't this the same guy who was pulled over driving cross country with several pounds of weed and a gun in the car? Said he worked at a weed farm or something and was driving back home to Cali?

 

[AliasNeo07]

Good

 

[Blacksmith101]

Here are the links from the other thread.

The UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA has found that the prohibition against firearm possession by users of marijuana in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) is unconstitutional in light of Bruen.

Link to the court order:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.okwd.118991/gov.uscourts.okwd.118991.36.0.pdf

Link to analysis by Guns and Gadgets:


Link to analysis by Four Boxes Diner:

 

[Blacksmith101]

Not really a good analogy. MD’s G&S blocked everyone and filtered for special cases. The feds will keep disapproving NICs while processing those 4473s - because it’s still a crime. This ruling doesn’t change that.

The ruling is by a federal court, The UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA, so wouldn't that establish precedent
at least in the Western District of Oklahoma? And if it gets appealed to the Tenth Circuit and upheld set precedent for the Tenth Circuit.

 

[Occam]

The ruling is by a federal court, The UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA, so wouldn't that establish precedent
at least in the Western District of Oklahoma? And if it gets appealed to the Tenth Circuit and upheld set precedent for the Tenth Circuit.

The ruling doesn't overturn the federal statutory treatment of the drug as a controlled substance, and thus illegal to possess. Doing so is still a federal crime. Effectively confessing to a routinely committed crime would still be a showstopper, as would lying about that on a 4473, wouldn't it? Seems like the 4473 would just tilt a bit to asking what amounts to the same question but in a different way: do you break federal law through the use of controlled substances? Still a show stopper until the feds change their minds - through legislation - about whether weed is federally naughty.

 

[Bob A]

Many of the drugs currently prohibited are there for no real reason other than politics.

But should they be de-scheduled, what will we do with all our drug cops? Why, just like we did when Prohibition went away - find them some other shiny object to chase!

Maybe all those pesky gun owners? Certainly ATF can dream up some more items to Felonize (Fellate?). Ammunition hoarding will have to go. Nobody needs more than X number of guns.

Never let a good Federal police force go to waste!

 

[lazarus]

Access to is definitely different than being under the influence while carrying/hunting etc. But regardless - isn't this a bit academic as long as the drug is federally illegal in the first place, and you need to assert you're not a law breaker on your 4473? I don't see how a state's permissiveness undoes a federal statute, especially as it relates to passing a federal background check. In practical terms, I don't see how to reconcile this until congress passes a new federal statute and the POTUS signs it.

Nope. You are asserting that you have not been convicted of a crime. I can commit all of the crimes and that doesn't make me prohibited. I have to be convicted, or at least indicted on crimes (the last only makes me prohibited from purchasing, not possessing).

So it being a federal crime doesn't matter. You'd have to be convicted of it, and the conviction would have to carry a sentence of more than 2 years as a misdemeanor or more than a year as a felony.

The question on the form is this "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?" The court just said that the part asking about marijuana is not constitutional. If you are then arrested, charged, and convicted of having that substance, then you'd be a criminal and possibly have to answer yes to having been convicted of a felony/misdemeanor. But for simple possession, few people get charged under federal law with that unless they happen to be smoking it up on federal property. Most under federal law are for trafficking.

If convicted under state law, very few states hand out 2+ year sentences for simple possession and almost all have decriminalized possession of small amounts. Even if convicted of that at the state level, you'd no longer have to answer yes to that 4473 question (really, ATF will need to change the 4473 to comply with the court order. At least in the district this court order covers).