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 is siding with a Texas marijuana user who wants to legally own a gun, 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.