Posted on 04/12/2023 7:56:58 AM PDT by Twotone
A federal judge in Texas recently agreed with a federal judge in Oklahoma that the national ban on gun possession by cannabis consumers violates the Second Amendment. Kathleen Cardone, a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, also concluded that the federal ban on transferring firearms to an "unlawful user" of a "controlled substance," first imposed by the Gun Control Act of 1968, is unconstitutional.
The case involves Paola Connelly, who was charged with illegal possession of firearms under 18 USC 922(g)(3) after El Paso police found marijuana and guns in her home while responding to a domestic disturbance in December 2021. Connelly, who said she used marijuana "to sleep at night and to help her with anxiety," also was charged with violating 18 USC 922(d)(3) by transferring guns to her husband, a cocaine and psilocybin user. Both gun offenses are punishable by up to 15 years in prison.
As a preliminary matter, Cardone held that Connelly's Second Amendment claims were not precluded by prior decisions in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which includes Texas, upheld Section 922(g)(3). Those decisions, she noted, preceded the Supreme Court's June 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which said gun control laws must be "consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."
Last February in United States v. Rahimi, the 5th Circuit concluded that Bruen required it to reconsider decisions upholding the federal ban on gun possession by people subject to domestic violence restraining orders. By the same logic, Cardone says in an order published last week, the 5th Circuit's precedents regarding Section 922(g)(3) are no longer binding.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
Aside from the main topic this is just another example that you should never talk to or interact with police voluntarily.
And they more they have firearms and commit violence, the more we will see calls for gun control.
Indeed, no rights for anyone who has ever consumed a beer or glass of wine either. /s
There is no ‘Except for’ clause..............What part of “shall not be infringed.” do they not understand?.......................
We have entered a phase of political contamination of the legal system, even to the highest levels. People now fear government, and they should. History is calling out that it appears that 3 elected Presidents have been destroyed by the Intelligence and legal apparatus of the United States Government. JFK, Nixon, and Donald Trump. At the same time, elements of political parties have prosecuted individuals for self defense. We now have a federal law enforcement group infiltrating catholic churches for ‘domestic terrorists’ while they still haven’t stopped or maybe targeted Antifa, BLM, and ‘sexual oriented’ terror groups. The current administration appears to have taken money from unfriendly governments, both while running for re-election in 2012 and leading up to the 2020 election. The US currency, economy, and average worker and taxpayer is being assaulted. I don’t think anyone on these boards will disagree with these facts.
The point is, this is not the time for an unarmed public. Since I believe this to be the essential point of the Second Amendment, tyrannical government, if your not under custody you should be armed. If they are to dangerous to have a gun, they are to dangerous to be in public.
Well this is how our government power brokers view its citizens. All of us are dangerous, either being criminals that they excuse, or those that want to defend against the criminals they excuse, and so all of us are dangerous and therefore, should not have weapons.
it is gettign to the point where all the legal law abiding citizens will have to become criminals in order to have any rights left-
Did you miss the /s ?
Marijuana is a Schedule 1 substance. Alcohol isn't.
Yes, it's true... and that fact is, to quote George Carlin, "Bullsh!! of EPIC PROPORTIONS."
To be a Schedule 1 narcotic, a drug has to have been found to have no legitimate medical use. A great many people who use medical cannabis would beg to differ on that point.
And that designation is completely arbitrary. Objectively, marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol.
I have personally witnessed two different people shatter their own hand punching a wall while drunk. I've also seen drunk people start fights for no good reason, shout and carry on for no good reason, and break things either intentionally or accidentally.
I have never seen someone high on marijuana do much more than ravage a bag of Cheetos.
“Marijuana is a Schedule 1 substance. Alcohol isn’t.”
That’s one of the weakest arguments for gun control I’ve ever heard.
Prior to 1971 it wasn't. (Thanks, Dick Nixon!)
And, alcohol was banned at one point in this country, but at the time, marijuana wasn't, so there's that.
Please show where in the 2nd Amendment it says, 'except for...'
Ayn Rand
Bruen continues to pay dividends. Thank you Justice Thomas!
Who cares? The second amendment reads "shall not be infringed". That's fairly clear to most people who can actually read and comprehend English.
That does not affect the nonsensical nature of your statement, or mine.
Are you suggesting alcohol is a benign substance that does not have a large mortality cost associated with it?
Or do you just trust every bit of nonsense our government puts out?
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.