Ban on marijuana users owning guns is unconstitutional, U.S. judge rules

Reuters ^ | 02/04/2023 | Nate Raymond

[CtBigPat]

A federal law prohibiting marijuana users from possessing firearms is unconstitutional, a federal judge in Oklahoma has concluded, citing last year's U.S. Supreme Court ruling that significantly expanded gun rights.

[CtBigPat]

U.S. District Judge Patrick Wyrick, an appointee of former Republican President Donald Trump in Oklahoma City, on Friday dismissed an indictment against a man charged in August with violating that ban, saying it infringed his right to bear arms under the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment.

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.

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."

[one guy in new jersey]

How about a ban on gun owners using marijuana?

Would that work?

[lee martell]

It’s hard to continue the old objections, considering that functional alcohol users can legally own guns.

[gibsonguy]

U.S. Supreme Court ruling that significantly expanded gun rights.“

F’n Reuters. The SC did not expand gun rights a-holes.

[CtBigPat]

Good. It’s time for some sanity when it comes to drugs. Alcohol is far more dangerous.

[libertylover]

citing last year's U.S. Supreme Court ruling that significantly expanded gun rights.

No, it did not. It merely clarified the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. See Tagline.

[Billthedrill]

Interesting. It will be appealed, of course, but if it stands that’s one little check box on the 4473 that’s going away.

[rellic]

Way I read second amendment is all American citizens have a right to keep and bear arms. I didn’t read of any limits
regardless of their bad habits.
If their habits cause problems then there is thing called quick due process to deprive them of their rights.
Y’all get it?

[Myrddin]

When you answer the questions on Form 4473 and sign under penalty of perjury, you have a record that you are not a user of marijuana. If you choose to use it after signing a Form 4473, you have a legal dilemma. A drug test and a copy of the Form 4473 is evidence of perjury.

[Rurudyne]

The whole crop of current federal gun regulations have no enumerated power backing them, they are all unconstitutional.

If only we didn’t have lawless jurists devoted to Arbitrary governance rather than the Law they swear to uphold.

[gundog]

[Revel]

There is a difference between saying drug users can’t have guns, and saying that people can’t use guns while under the influence of a mind altering drug. Including Alcohol.

[Lurker]

I disagree. If you weren’t a user when you signed the form then there’s no perjury.

L

[Az Joe]

BOOM! That’s MY president who appointed that judge!

[Regulator]

The judge is right of course.

Let’s hear the Left object. The contortions they’ll go thru will be hilarious.

[gundog]

Gotta love the pro-abort anti-hunters....

[LibWhacker]

[gundog]

Kinda like denying car ownership to drunks.

[Reno89519]

Yes, maybe that would be a good solution.

[TigersEye]

Kid’s gotta good point! lol