US supreme courts sided with Texas man, weed and guns is ok

[Saltwater60]

Of course this is what’s important to them. Weed and guns and not giving us our rights back. Political priorities are shining through this one for sure.

Supreme Court sides with a Texas man who says it’s not a crime for marijuana users to have guns

The Supreme Court has ruled against a broad federal ban on gun ownership by marijuana users. The decision Thursday is the latest in a line of firearm cases from a court that has expanded gun rights.

apnews.com

Edit to add some context I support people getting their gun rights back so I do support this.
My issue with this is that’s this isn’t about giving all of us our rights back. While this is a good thing I would rather see something that applies to all gun owners and not just those who choose to use weed. They take this up but reject mag bans, safe act, gun bans, bans on locations to carry and I could go on. Many more issues more pertinent IMO to us all in many cases.

Also where will this go? Are heroin users now ok with guns. Just saying. I know many don’t care about people using drugs or not I’m just wondering how far this would go.

 

[OwnTheRide]

I know your position on weed is probably influencing your opinion here, but this is a major step in the right direction. Constitutional rights should only be stripped in the most egregious of cases... and no, "felony" is not even the right line. "Murder," "rape," and "robbery" is where it should be.

Anything that pushes back on limitations to our rights is a good thing, IMO.

 

[SonOfSun]

This is good news. This law was always just a way to strip away people's rights. I'm not a weed user, but it seems pretty stupid to say someone can't have a gun because they smoke(d) weed. It has zero bearing on if someone is violent or not.

All actual crimes committed using a gun will still be crimes. Whether someone was on weed or not has zero impact on whether use of force is justified or not. You wouldn't say someone who had a beer loses the right to defend themselves would you? So why should weed be any different?

 

[OwnTheRide]

You wouldn't say someone who had a beer loses the right to defend themselves would you? So why should weed be any different?

Hell, this law was much worse than that. It would be like saying a person who had a beer last week is a felon today for simply possessing a gun, never mind using it to defend themselves.

 

[livingston]

Supreme Court Delivers Landmark 2A Win: Government LOSES Major Controlled Substance Ban Case​

 

[livingston]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1234_g2bh.pdf

 

[Saltwater60]

I know your position on weed is probably influencing your opinion here, but this is a major step in the right direction. Constitutional rights should only be stripped in the most egregious of cases... and no, "felony" is not even the right line. "Murder," "rape," and "robbery" is where it should be.

Anything that pushes back on limitations to our rights is a good thing, IMO.

Don’t get me wrong I don’t support legalizing drugs, but I agree it’s a good thing. I support this decision. I get why you thought I didn’t but I want to clarify.
I think legalizing weed was forcing people to make a choice between guns or weed in many cases.
My issue with this is that’s this isn’t about giving us rights back. While this is a good thing I would rather see something that applies to all gun owners and not just those who choose to use weed. They take this up but reject mag bans, safe act, gun bans, bans on locations to carry and I could go on. Many more issues more pertinent IMO.

 

[TEOTWAWKI inc.]

Now that I'm thinking of it, it's surprising NY doesn't include drug tests in their good moral character standard. Maybe they will now.

 

[REF]

Now that I'm thinking of it, it's surprising NY doesn't include drug tests in their good moral character standard. Maybe they will now.

The timing of your last post was fitting for the topic!! Just wanted to point that out.

 

[TEOTWAWKI inc.]

The timing of your last post was fitting for the topic!! Just wanted to point that out.

Purely coincidental. I'm not a smelly hippie.

 

[SonOfSun]

Don’t get me wrong I don’t support legalizing drugs, but I agree it’s a good thing. I support this decision. I get why you thought I didn’t but I want to clarify.
I think legalizing weed was forcing people to make a choice between guns or weed in many cases.
My issue with this is that’s this isn’t about giving us rights back. While this is a good thing I would rather see something that applies to all gun owners and not just those who choose to use weed. They take this up but reject mag bans, safe act, gun bans, bans on locations to carry and I could go on. Many more issues more pertinent IMO.

Obviously I think all of us here hard disagree with things like the safe act, "assault" rifle bans, etc. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be happy with good changes. You don't get to the end of your driveway in one big leap, it's a series of steps that gets you there. This change isn't the end destination, it's a step.

 

[REF]

Purely coincidental. I'm not a smelly hippie.

Sure, sure

 

[REF]

Purely coincidental. I'm not a smelly hippie.

If I smoked pot right now , I’m pretty sure I’d hide under my bed in a state of paranoia, and then empty my fridge

 

[TEOTWAWKI inc.]

If I smoked pot right now , I’m pretty sure I’d hide under my bed in a state of paranoia, and then empty my fridge

I was much more productive as a pot smoker than I am today. Likely just due to age and energy level though.

Far more paranoid today than back then though. Likely just due to maturity and wisdom.

 

[MothMan]

 

[GOPerfect]

I am not a fan of legalizes drugs. None of them.

In saying this, I think this ruling is fantastic. Every time the courts cut back any infringements against our Rights is a good ruling/

 

[TEOTWAWKI inc.]

I am not a fan of legalizes drugs. None of them.

In saying this, I think this ruling is fantastic. Every time the courts cut back any infringements against our Rights is a good ruling/

I lived in Denver when medical use for weed was taking off. The way it changed the state was noticeable. Peaceful pot smokers though, and professional in many aspects of their lives. The state continued to grow and thrive.

I lived in NY when it was legalized. It changed the state overnight, at least around where I lived, and I found it unbearable, almost like a new entitlement. Mostly blacks, no longer participated in a Civil society, even though their participation was only minimal prior to that.

I don't care what other people do but NY completely gave up on quality of life for everyone with legalization. It can probably be done right, but there has to be consequences for other things. You shouldn't legalize drugs at the same time you stop enforcing everything else.

Some people can handle freedom, some cannot.

 

[Darth]

You’d be hard pressed to find any valid argument that jumps the gap between “no gun should be illegal, it’s what you do with them that should be illegal” and “but drugs should be illegal no matter what you do with them.”

And I’ll even toss this out there: “Well one is a CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT!” is a horrendous argument.

Everything is legal until it is made not by the government. Because one thing has, or is supposed to have, strong protections does exactly nothing to weaken the validity of the legality of the other.

 

[Darth]

I lived in Denver when medical use for weed was taking off. The way it changed the state was noticeable. Peaceful pot smokers though, and professional in many aspects of their lives. The state continued to grow and thrive.

I lived in NY when it was legalized. It changed the state overnight, at least around where I lived, and I found it unbearable, almost like a new entitlement. Mostly blacks, no longer participated in a Civil society, even though their participation was only minimal prior to that.

I don't care what other people do but NY completely gave up on quality of life for everyone with legalization. It can probably be done right, but there has to be consequences for other things. You shouldn't legalize drugs at the same time you stop enforcing everything else.

Some people can handle freedom, some cannot.

That clearly shows it’s, again, NY failing at everything it touches.

I don’t think you’ll get much pushback that NY does that with everything.

 

[TEOTWAWKI inc.]

That clearly shows it’s, again, NY failing at everything it touches.

I don’t think you’ll get much pushback that NY does that with everything.

Weed, bro! They fucked up something almost everyone had already been doing, for decades.

Majority of net taxpayers must realize their lives dis-improved when this passed.

 

[spat]

I know your position on weed is probably influencing your opinion here, but this is a major step in the right direction. Constitutional rights should only be stripped in the most egregious of cases... and no, "felony" is not even the right line. "Murder," "rape," and "robbery" is where it should be.

Anything that pushes back on limitations to our rights is a good thing, IMO.

The 2A should apply fully to every American who isn't actually incarcerated.

Can't trust them with a gun ? Then you can't trust them not to acquire one illegally and use it.

 

[spat]

You’d be hard pressed to find any valid argument that jumps the gap between “no gun should be illegal, it’s what you do with them that should be illegal” and “but drugs should be illegal no matter what you do with them.”

And I’ll even toss this out there: “Well one is a CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT!” is a horrendous argument.

Everything is legal until it is made not by the government. Because one thing has, or is supposed to have, strong protections does exactly nothing to weaken the validity of the legality of the other.

Ironically the left does exactly the opposite.

They demand gun control and when you point out how absolutely terrible prohibition is, whether it's alcohol, drugs, or guns, they just get angry and shout "I'm not talking about drugs".

 

[Cooolone]

Bruen made the path clear ... Artificial encumbrances to exercising the 2nd amendment are defacto infringements and therefore unconstitutional, errr, inconsistent with the original intent! Lol

So, is a person who uses drugs as defined by the Federal Govt restricted from voting? How about a drug user not being able to invoke their 5th?

So this one is easy... No need to sweep up an entire mountain of unrelated bagge it drags along with it. The courts don't operate that way. Look at it and focus on the issue it addressed. And for the matter, yes, the court got it right in regard to the issue. That's all there is to it.

Now...

What's the Barber say???

NEXT!?

Lol

 

[Grimscale]

It's good that SCOTUS declared someone who uses weed keeps their 2A Rights.

Now, if only SCOTUS would finally unequivocally, declare that banning parts of the 2A because "it's scary" is bullshit.
Then enforce their decision.

What good is it to say "you can keep and bear arms" when you can no longer acquire arms?

 

[Bustedknees]

Anytime my dad removed his helmet from motorcycling and snowmobiling. "Smoke em if ya got em". But in cigarettes.

 

[OwnTheRide]

I am not a fan of legalizes drugs. None of them.

Alcohol as well? We were, after all, taught in school that alcohol is a drug.

 

[Saltwater60]

I lived in Denver when medical use for weed was taking off. The way it changed the state was noticeable. Peaceful pot smokers though, and professional in many aspects of their lives. The state continued to grow and thrive.

I lived in NY when it was legalized. It changed the state overnight, at least around where I lived, and I found it unbearable, almost like a new entitlement. Mostly blacks, no longer participated in a Civil society, even though their participation was only minimal prior to that.

I don't care what other people do but NY completely gave up on quality of life for everyone with legalization. It can probably be done right, but there has to be consequences for other things. You shouldn't legalize drugs at the same time you stop enforcing everything else.

Some people can handle freedom, some cannot.

I noticed this as well. Not so much with the minorities but just tons of people with lack of motivation. I have noticed tons of entitlement and people saying beer is worse.
They are putting a grow operation in a residential area in my town. You should have heard how rude and wicked people are to the older folks in that area not wanting it. People saying it won’t smell because they have air scrubbers on them, it will smell. I don’t want to smell it all the time. People smoking it everywhere. In cars driving hanging huge blunts out the window, everyone around me does it, I hate the smell. The two lesbians across the street sit in their car daily a few times a day smoking it. The firemen across the street smokes it, he’s on call and drives a city vehicle. Everyone knows he does it. The lack of care, misinformation, and rudeness/entitlement around it is insane.

 

[Saltwater60]

Weed, bro! They fucked up something almost everyone had already been doing, for decades.

Majority of net taxpayers must realize their lives dis-improved when this passed.

I think making something legal that’s been illegal for so long does something. I think more people smoke it and smoke more of it as a result. I wouldn’t care if my neighbors sat around and took edibles but I can’t stand the stench of it.

 

[Saltwater60]

It's good that SCOTUS declared someone who uses weed keeps their 2A Rights.

Now, if only SCOTUS would finally unequivocally, declare that banning parts of the 2A because "it's scary" is bullshit.
Then enforce their decision.

What good is it to say "you can keep and bear arms" when you can no longer acquire arms?

This is my aggravation with this as well.

 

[spat]

It's good that SCOTUS declared someone who uses weed keeps their 2A Rights.

Now, if only SCOTUS would finally unequivocally, declare that banning parts of the 2A because "it's scary" is bullshit.
Then enforce their decision.

What good is it to say "you can keep and bear arms" when you can no longer acquire arms?

I want the 2A to be so strong that people start making very peripheral arguments about things being arms to they're protected, the way they do with speech for the 1A. "No, you can't seize that land by eminent domain because I use that for target shooting, so it's 2A protected land..."

Expand the "chilling effect" doctrine of the 1A to the 2A ". NO, that law against realistic toy guns is unconstitutional because it will have a chilling effect on people who want to teach their kids to exercise their 2A"