This Ping List is for all news pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
Posted on 02/09/2023 3:59:28 AM PST by marktwain
On May 20, 2022, the defendant, Jared Michael Harrison, was pulled over by the Lawton Police department for an alleged traffic violation. The officer smelled marijuana. Officers searched the car and found some marijuana and a pistol. Harrison was on bond from Texas and was wearing an ankle monitor.
Harrison was arrested and is awaiting trial. There are pending state charges. On August 17, 2022, a federal grand jury returned an indictment for possessing a firearm with the knowledge he was an unlawful user of marijuana, in violation of Statute 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3).
Harrison argued, among other things, the charge violated the Second Amendment under the Supreme Court Bruen decision. The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, Judge Patrick R. Wyrick presiding, heard the case. The court is in the jurisdiction of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Court found the prohibition on the possession of firearms as an unlawful user of marijuana was unconstitutional because there is no historical tradition of removing the right to keep and bear arms from people who use intoxicating substances. Here is a summation of the Court order. From the order, p. 1:
Before the Court is Defendant Jared Michael Harrison’s Motion to Dismiss the Indictment (Dkt. 17), which argues that the statute he is charged with violating, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), is unconstitutionally vague, in violation of the Due Process Clause, and unconstitutionally infringes upon his fundamental right to possess a firearm, in violation of the Second Amendment. For the reasons given below, the motion is GRANTED.
Here is the exact wording of the statute in question. From Law.cornell.edu, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3):
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Dean, do you see this going up to the supremes eventually?
CC
This will probably be appealed to the 10th circuit first.
There may be lawsuits filed in other circuits as well. Lot of marijuana users out there.
All the pot dispensaries demand you produce a drivers licence to be able to buy pot.
My girlfriend had a curbside dilevery of her pot and the guy wanted me to produce mine just for being in the car.
No i didnt bring it I said.
The girl said they delete their records ...
Lol..I was told that when they did a background check on a gun purchase and found out they lied about that
Shall not be infringed
That's like an IQ test right there.
It seems needing a driver’s license to buy pot should be the first illegal part of this equation, as it would disenfranchise black people (like it does for voting) and that law is upheld vigorously.
This should go away.
Pot should be decriminalized at the fed level. and posession/ use made uniform at the fed level.
BUT, a favorable ruling like this easily opens the door to negate a lot more possibilities.
I could easily see the argument that a convicted felon, or a person that completed their prison sentence should have ALL of their rights restored.
This Ping List is for all news pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
So now we’re going to have drug-crazed addicts running around with firearms. More ammo for the gun control crowd to disarm all of us.
So you are saying, the Constitution depends on how much fear can be generated?
Even the Constitution has its limits. First Amendment doesn't allow you to yell fire in crowded theater when there isn't one.
Congress’ prohibition on possessing both firearms and marijuana exists for two reasons:
1. to escalate the criminality of firearm possession, and
2. to establish a criteria of contraband which law enforcement can rely on for arrests instead of relying on the difficulty of witnessing criminal acts.
We already HAVE drug-crazed addicts running around with firearms.
Even the Constitution has its limits. First Amendment doesn’t allow you to yell fire in crowded theater when there isn’t one.
~~~~~~~~~
As the article alludes to, the ban on possessing both firearms and marijuana relies on the stricture that the Constitution’s protections of individual rights are reserved only for virtuous people. Before 1968 people who possessed or used marijuana were not considered sufficiently non-virtuous as to remove their 2nd Amendment rights.
I was thinking the same thing. I know a lot of people would have problems with that. I’m still wrapping my head around it. As things currently stand, felons completing their prison sentences have all their rights returned except their 2a rights. Does that make 2a rights not as important than others, whether a criminal or not?
I like to think that paying your debt to society ends with a stable, productive citizen that continues to contribute to society with all his rights. I suppose the problem with unequal justice and weak sentences gets in the way for some to see the goal of prison terms is to actually create honest citizens out of felons, and hence they shouldn’t every have their full rights restored. That’s perpetual punishment, which defies any notion of punishment fitting the crime.
Certainly, just like anyone who consumes ANY alcohol is an alcoholic, a raging drunk.
/s
Second Republican Council Member Shot to Death in NJ
https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2023/02/09/second-republican-council-member-shot-to-death-in-nj-n700968
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.