Supreme Court will consider whether people who regularly smoke pot can legally own guns
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/supreme-court-people-regularly-smoke-pot-legally-guns-126680021Open linkView original on lemmy.worldSyndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.
View original on lemmy.worldhttps://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/supreme-court-people-regularly-smoke-pot-legally-guns-126680021Open linkView original on lemmy.world
128 replies
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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"
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.
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:
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.
Feels like alcohol should be higher in priority over weed when it comes to anger issues
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.
Logically, yes, but this court doesn't need logic where it is going...
This case is not about imposing new restrictions.
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
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.
Isn't this almost never enforced? You'd have to be caught by federal law enforcement with both on you, which seems incredibly unlikely.
IIRC this is mainly used as a foot in the door to get people on more serious charges, like Al Capone w/ tax evasion.
Not defending it, as #1 the federal government doesn't have the power to criminalize or regulate marijuana in the first place, and #2 it's a gross violation of your rights.
Aren't the pot smokers more mellow and less likely to fight/shoot/kill someone. I think drinkers stand a better chance of violence. How about we leave both groups alone. Case closed ... next?
I think the issue should be pretty cut and dry. You can drink as often as you want and own guns. You can't go out shooting while you're drinking. You should be able to smoke whenever you want as long as you're not inebriated when you're shooting.
Well, drugs that impair you, anyway. Caffeine, for example, is fine, unless you've had so much that you get jittery.
Chill dude, you're calling out "straw man" like I'm disagreeing with you. I'm saying that the rules should work the same way. There's no reason people that smoke should be banned from gun ownership, just like people who drink aren't banned.
Wow, you're a little insufferable
Try telling that to the old farts at the trap range.
I knew one club shooting president who really, really wanted to ban drinking while using any of the ranges. The culture of having a beer while shooting was too entrenched, and the loss of membership numbers from the old guys leaving would have put the club out of business. So it was only banned on the pistol/rifle ranges. Had to leave trap and skeet as they were.
they should be the worry about the cocaine and meth users.
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.
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.
A surprising amount of people don't understand that if they live in a state where weed is legal that doesn't mean Federal laws on it don't apply.
The assessment should consider ALL mind altering substances the gun owner consumes. Beer, weed, medications. Self-reporting isn't great, but better than nothing.
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.
pure cocaine is often done by upper middle class and rich people, coke is for the poors. ketamine for people like musk.
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.
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.
What if I irregularly smoke pot?
Like upside down? Or in a funny hat?
Only can own ARs then
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.
The case in front of SCOTUS is not about implementing a new restriction. It is about if a long standing restriction on the unrelated use of controlled substances is a Constitutional violation. Weed is grabbing the headline, but the restriction applies to a vast range of substances.
Thank you for the clarification. I read this when I was half asleep.
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.
A wrinkle to this case is that Federally marijuana is in the most restricted category. It's above meth or cocaine.
Obviously a lot of people consider those drugs more harmful than marijuana, but if we are playing the legal game then marijuana is legislated as being more dangerous and that's what the court has to work with.
SCOTUS I think has to decide if controlled substance use as a whole can prohibit legally buying a gun or not. I'm not sure if they can just make a carveout for marijuana. (Also the person taking the case up had cocaine too, so it can't not be brought up.)
You'd be surprised how many 2A people, who are across the political spectrum, are fine with removing that category of prohibition entirely. However I wonder if it will make SCOTUS more hesitant to make such an "extreme" ruling.
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.
ATF form 4473 question 11(e) asks:
Are you. Right at the moment you are checking the box, are you an unlawful user ...?
Caffeine and nicotine are stimulants.
TBF, I think the people smoking pot should be the ONLY ones allowed to have guns, much more laid back.
Now do alcohol and you have a gun free country :D
They're looking to overturn the law preventing gun ownership for drug users.
I'm kinda shocked how many people in this thread just made the assumption the court was trying to do the bad thing without even reading the article
Guilty 🫠
I mean, they likely are. Sort of. 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 overturning the law they could have done so by dint of letting the lower court's ruling lie.
Just so we're all on the same page, the current status quo is that you cannot buy a firearm if you use pot. This ruling would potentially change that. No, it does not matter if your state has legalized it, or if it's strictly for medicinal use. The ATF doesn't care.
It's rarely enforced, but it's there.
No one else here bothered to get on this page.
I tried.
This thread is a pretty good example of why I say that even if you're completely against any guns existing in society at all, you should still know how they work and what current laws actually do. Otherwise, you get the jumping to conclusions and bad analysis that we see here.
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.
I wish people would read the articles. Weed is already Federally prohibited. The case is an attempt to overturn that.
lol. so many rural gun owners smoke pot. the stereotype is a urban youth but it is so common in rural areas.
I hope they decide they can. That said the entire corpus of the Roberts court still needs thrown out
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
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.
So that's why her music is so ethereal…
Oh you ain't ready to snoke yet my son
The case is about overturning existing prohibitions. Reading the article would clarify this.
In 2019 I asked my doctor if I should have my vaccinations boosted because I was traveling for work. He asked if I was traveling to third world countries. I said I was. He asked which ones and I replied, "The US."
He boosted all of my vaccinations and added a couple of others.
I had them all as a kid but with the way things were going in the US I was afraid of bringing measles home. My wife has had the MMR four times and it doesn't take. She had it as a kid then she was tested before each kid and they gave it to her again because she didn't have antibodies.
i asked about meningicoccal , they would refuse if they dont think your in a risk population group. i was about varicella once, but i already shingles a long time ago, and that indicates a chickenpox infection, (the vaccination dint prevent or lessen the effect shingles) as i already had the viremic version of varicella.
I'm in Canada. My doughter got the meningococcal vaccine on her way to university but we had to pay for it. We then paid for it for our son who is in highschool. I got the RSV vaccine last year because I was receiving chemo. We can get the pneumococcal if we are immunecompromised or over...65?
I don't think that they can prevent the shingles once you've had chickenpox. There is a drug on the market, famciclovir, that is extremely effective at treating shingles if you get it within 72 hours of the onset of symptoms. I had shingles in my 30s and got famvir and had a really easy ride.
Never happened
https://gizmodo.com/online-trolls-actually-just-assholes-all-the-time-stud-1847575210
Here's a Facebook post from 2021 after getting the AstraZeneca Covid vaccine talking about getting all those vaccinations two years before, in 2019.
Fuck you.
I'm gonna take a shot in the dark here and guess that they'll completely forget about the historical precedent test that they just randomly pulled out of their ass, but only when it comes to drugs, queer people, and leftists.
They can have it once it's empty.
Well said.
Ah yes, another spectacular "small government" approach from those Conservatives. "Don't tread on me, unless I'm brown/queer/leftist then tread all over"
I'm confused here. The current law bans Marijuana usage and owning a firearm. It has done so for decades.
The Supreme Court is considering legalizing it
Sort of. 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.
My understanding is this court is very absolute on gun rights. I'd imagine them to uphold the previous court, but you never know these days
“SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, LIBTARDS!”
*Terms and conditions apply. ::: spoiler Tap for spoiler Not applicable to blacks, liberals, queers, leftists, women, convicts, or users of the marijuanas. Sincerely, American Taliban, Guardians of Pedophiles. :::The case is about overturning an existing restriction, not adding new ones.
Far out man.
Relevant project from Print, Shoot, Repeat: the Glong.
Can't wait to send this to the weed smoking chud I know. Also they gonna throw out Hunter Biden's criminal conviction?
Weed is already prohibited. The case is about overturning that.
At this point the court will probably do something like "its illegal but only if you're racial profiling or said said something mean about trump"
Smoking pot should be mandatory. Some people need to calm down, mellow out.
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.
People who regularly smoke weed should not own guns. Neither should anyone else. Sincerely, every developed nation.
If everyone else gets guns, then weed smokers get guns too, otherwise it's a very convenient way to selectively apply gun restrictions to specific groups of people.
After smoking, I’d be too scared to even look at my gun, let alone use it.
yeah, i agree the disparity is shit. there is no legitimate reason to treat weed smokers differently. if you were to use a gun in self defence, say, i can understand that whether you were impaired at the time might be PART of the legal picture, but that notion should apply evenly to everyone, irrespective of the drug. like you said, it is just another tool for targeted enforcement.
So is weed.
Funny thing is, i agree. i used to like going to the range, shooting clay pigeons, etc. handguns are tightly controlled in my country, but i imagine i would like them too if i ever got to use one. i still don’t think just everyone should have one, though, because the societal price is too high to justify.
Try reading the article, they'd like this
The administration urged SCOTUS to consider overturning it.
The attorneys are the ones who prosecuted the guy whose case this is. Why would they argue against their own prosecution?
And he calls me a doofus. Fucking idiots
I’ll take any form of gun control at this point
The case is not about implementing new gun control, but looking at if an aspect of existing control is unconstitutional.
Good. If we can't get rid of the pot fully, then make it so users' rights and privileges are curtailed. It shouldn't be "regularly" use, either. It should be whether the person has ever used the drug or supports use of the drug.
Do you have the same strong feelings about more dangerous drugs?
Such as alcohol?
Why?
Yeah, good idea! After all, marijuana is so dangerous, unlike guns.
^ Fourteen years old either physically or mentally.
lol