Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 06/18/2026 8:44:04 AM PDT by PROCON
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday sided unanimously with a Texas marijuana user in a Second Amendment case asking whether it was constitutional to ban certain drug users from owning firearms.
Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the court's opinion, writing that the government's persecution of a Texas man who owned guns while admitting to regularly using marijuana was unconstitutional and violated the man's Second Amendment rights.
Although Gorsuch acknowledged that the decision was "narrow" and did not address whether someone who is actively intoxicated can use a gun.
Someone addicted to a drug could still be prosecuted after Thursday’s decision, Gorsuch wrote. “We do not address efforts to ban addicts, or those presently intoxicated, from possessing a firearm,” he wrote. Prosecutors could potentially still charge a marijuana user, if they had evidence the person was dangerous.
(Excerpt) Read more at king5.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Most Marijuana Growers and Sellers have guns.
Why not the users?
See? Hunter Biden is just like everyone else... except for the drugs, guns, and hookers part.
I thought it was because he lied on a form, not the actual gun possession.
I suspect that most gun owners take a drink now and then, too. If pot is legal where one lives, I don’t see much difference.
“Supreme Court says it’s not a crime for marijuana users to own guns”
Why would it be? Shall be infringed by marijuana? I didn’t see that text anywhere.
True but the form itself is an infringement.
I'd rather have neither. Marijuana is a dangerous substance. Continuous use can cause psychosis. It's potency can be almost infinitely enhanced. It's effects can linger in the body for days.
Bump this up to Crack, and it could be called “Biden vs. DOJ”.
It is also legal in half the states.
In many respects, this case is a narrow one. We do not address efforts to ban addicts, see n. 2, supra, or those pres- ently intoxicated, from possessing a firearm.
We do not ad- dress other prophylactic laws Congress might adopt after determining that users of a particular drug pose a special risk of misusing firearms. See n. 6, supra. We do not ad- dress 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(1)’s provision disarming individu- als convicted of felonies (often including drug-related ones). Ibid. We do not even address whether the government could bring a prosecution under §922(g)(3) accompanied by individualized proof that the defendant’s use of marijuana (or any other drug) renders him a danger to himself or oth- ers. Or proof that a certain drug always renders its users dangerous because of its potency or for some other reason. None of those issues is before us and we do not pass on them either way.
I don’t trust Virgina Gov. Spanburger, but this SCOTUS decision undercuts Virginia’s law that banned legal medical marijuana user from owning guns.
“Although Gorsuch acknowledged that the decision was “narrow” and did not address whether someone who is actively intoxicated can use a gun.” ‘Actively intoxicated’ is the best time to shoot firearms.
You are stretching. Very small percentage of weed smokers end up with psychosis. Why should majority of others have their 2-A rights yanked away?
Guns and thought altering substances are a bad mix. Just sayin’.
“Guns and thought altering substances are a bad mix.”
So is speech and voting.
If you can’t ban pot heads from speaking or voting, you can’t ban them from guns.
Oh, how convenient.
😂👍🇺🇸
a little dangerous to smoke pot outta a gun aint it?
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.