US District Judge Patrick Wyrick has just made millions of marijuana users — particularly those in states where cannabis use has been legalized — very happy…at least those in the Tenth Circuit. The federal government lists marijuana as a Schedule 1 controlled substance. If you use it you stand to lose your gun rights. That’s why the ATF’s form 4473 background check form asks about it and now warns those who live in states where it’s been legalized.
Jared Michael Harrison . . .
…had been charged after being arrested by police in Lawton, Oklahoma, in May 2022 following a traffic stop. During a search of his car, police found a loaded revolver as well as marijuana. Harrison told police he had been on his way to work at a medical marijuana dispensary, but that he did not have a state-issued medical-marijuana card.
At the time of he arrest, Harrison was out on bond pending trial for an aggravated assault charge involving a firearm in Texas.
Harrison and another man are alleged to have shot into a crowd at a college party, seriously wounding at least one partygoer. It is not clear from the available records in the Texas case whether any conditions of release were imposed on Harrison other than the location monitoring.
Harrison’s defense employed the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling in his defense.
His lawyers had argued the portion of federal firearms law focused on drug users or addicts was not consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, echoing what the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled last year in a case known as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. That case set new standards for interpreting the Second Amendment.
The prosecution argued that “disarming presumptively risky persons, namely, felons, the mentally ill, and the intoxicated” is in the public interest. Judge Wyrick, however, wasn’t buying what the DOJ was selling.
On Friday Judge Wyrick ruled that the law passed by Congress depriving marijuana users of their Second Amendment rights is unconstitutionally flawed.
It bears repeating that all the United States would have to prove at trial in order to justify depriving Harrison of is right to possess a firearm is that he is a user of marijuana. But the mere use of marijuana carries none of the characteristics that the Nation’s history and tradition of firearms regulation supports. The use of marijuana — which an be bought legally (under state law) at more than 2,000 ordinary store fronts in Oklahoma — is not in and of itself a violent, forceful, or threatening act. It is not a “crime of violence.” Nor does it involve “the actual use or threatened use of force.”
That Congress may have passed §922(g)(3), as the United States suggests, with some vague relation to public safety or “the public interest” does not change this conclusion. It is not appropriate for a court to “reflexively defer to a [legislative] label when a fundamental right is at stake.” And the use of marijuana does not become a violent, forceful, or threatening act merely because the legislature says it is.
He also refereneced Bruen in his conclusion that marijuana use doesn’t make anyone a “dangerous lunatic.”
But the United States’ own conception of the historical tradition demonstrates why §922(g)(3) as applied to Harrison is not analogous to these traditions. Under the United States’ own theory, history and tradition would limit disarmament to dangerous lunatics. And as explained above, the mere use of marijuana does not indicate that someone is in fact dangerous, let alone analogous to a “dangerous lunatic.” There are likely nearly 400,000 Oklahomans who use marijuana under state-law authorization. Lumping all those persons into a category with “dangerous lunatics,” as the United States’ theory requires, is a bridge too far.
The judge noted that the criminal justice system could have kept Harrison behind bars to ensure he didn’t get his hands on a gun if it concluded that he’s a threat.
None of this is to say that the government cannot play a role in protecting the public from dangerous persons possessing firearms. It can, and it should. For example, if the State of Texas thought that Harrison’s alleged involvement in a shooting demonstrated that Harrison was a danger to the public, it could have demonstrated to a Texas judge—in an individualized proceeding of which Harrison would have been given notice and the opportunity to be heard—that Harrison ought to be jailed while awaiting trial for that shooting. The Constitution, after all, permits pre-trial detention, and such detention would be a highly effective means of furthering the government’s interest in protecting the public from a gun-toting Harrison. But that didn’t happen; Harrison was released pending trial in Texas. And so here we are, with the federal government now arguing that Harrison’s mere status as a user of marijuana justifies stripping him of his fundamental right to possess a firearm. For all the reasons given above, this is not a constitutionally permissible means of disarming Harrison.
Judge Wyrick vacated the indictment against Harrison, dismissing it with prejudice. You can read the full ruling here.
This will probably cause almost as much hysteria and hair-pulling as last week’s Bruen-based decision in the Fifth Circuit ruling that a ban on gun possession by people under a domestic violence restraining order is unconstitutional (see today’s quote).
Note: The District Court Judge’s ruling isn’t binding on the Tenth Circuit, so don’t assume you can blaze away while carrying in front of a cop if you live in one of those states. The matter of marijuana and guns has far to go before it’s settled in the Tenth Circuit, let alone the rest of America.
In both of these cases, the defendants had prior charges against them for which they could have been kept in jail if the criminal justice system believed them to be threats to society. Neither were. Maybe that’s the real problem society should be dealing with rather than trying to strip individuals of their Second Amendment rights for arbitrary reasons.
Drugs, like guns, cause an emotional outburst in folks. The .gov has no right to regulate what you put in your body nor do they have the right to regulate what and how you carry.
If you commit a crime while using either then you face the music. Any else is simply fascism.
RE: “law focused on drug users or addicts was not consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,”
Well counselor that “historic tradition of firearm regulation” has Racism written all over it just like its sidekick Slavery.
It’s called Gun Control…America’s Biggest dirty little secret…And if you are waiting on courtroom drama queens to expose it then you are waiting on others to do your job.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,000 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know you are currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,000 dollars, it’s simple online operating jobs.
Just open the link…. https://incomeboost2.blogspot.com/
lots of devil’s lettuce haters here. i don’t intend to change minds (i grew up amongst solid intolerance) but i’ll say better sour diesel/ chem dog than john barleycorn when it comes to self defense.
craycray be so long before.
I imbibed more than my fair share in my ‘yoot’, and the only thing I wanted to do while high was listen to music and inhale mass quantities of yummy pizza… 🙂
Wake up and smell the coffee. The gun controllers are afraid of law abiding citizens. All of the countries where the communal government took over used the criminals to gain control. After that they all crack down and kill off the criminals.
Lawful possession != intoxication. How was there ever a case?
It’s just more old legal precedence that holds the 2A to a different standard than every other enumerated right. Basically the courts were holding that you had to have a ‘good moral character’ to exercise your 2A rights. It’s basically the same justification they use to issue life-time bans on 2A rights for people who have committed felony’s and certain misdemeanor crimes that the feds have artificially elevated to a special status.
“It’s just more old legal precedence that holds the 2A to a different standard than every other enumerated right.”
Your 1st Amendment-protected right to free speech is likewise infringed in the name of public safety, and “compelling government interest”.
It is called “hate speech”.
Haven’t partaken in the herb in perhaps 40 years. Happy I wasn’t busted for it. I have a 50 year friend who has a boatload of gats I’m fairly certain still partakes. I don’t care. And while I don’t “approve” of pot as long as you ain’t otherwise a violent criminal have fun.
I don’t know what to say about this, I was never a pothead in my life I was more of a redneck type Beer Drinker when I was younger. I did not care for the potheads, hippies, peace type people of the ’60s. so why is it that drinking alcohol and guns don’t mix or is frowned upon but now it’s okay to smoke pot and be high and carry a gun? can anyone answer this question? I am a super pro gun person I think everyone should carry a weapon but when you are taking drugs it clouds your judgment I don’t care if it’s alcohol pills or smoking pot that’s all the same. and this might turn into a fiasco later if people lose their head and start pulling their guns out when they’re not supposed to it might end up harming US law abiding gun owners rather than benefiting.
“…I don’t care if it’s alcohol pills or smoking pot that’s all the same.”
No, it isn’t, not by a long shot. Different chemicals do different things, to different folks.
I’ve never seen anyone get aggressive or violent after smoking weed. Can you say the same about alcohol?
Does that qualify?
I am not sticking up for alcohol by any means. I do not do any of that stuff, but I do not think anybody that takes any kind of drugs should be carrying guns I don’t care what they say about pot it’s still a drug and it still affects your mind. we are supposed to forge Our Lives from the Bible in the Bible does not condone any of that. that is what’s wrong with the whole society today. if we don’t stop what we’re doing we’re going to be in the toilet.
Caffeine is a drug – CNS, physically addictive…
just sayin’
A little wine for the stomach. What was JESUS first miracle? Moderation
ANY drug use removes inhibitions.. It is NOT an excuse for murder.
ANY crime that kills should receiver the DEATH penalty. Restore it…
Pure nonsense.
I take a drug, a Controlled Substance. It does not remove my inhibitions. Instead, it incapacitates me. When high, I have neither the inclination to do anything nor the physical capacity to do anything. Going to the bathroom to urinate is a challenge.
There is a common-sense notion of proportionality.
Consider the “Florida guy” who was convicted of manslaughter (IIRC) for shooting his attacker, who stomped on him outside a store.
He was convicted of manslaughter. You would have him executed. His real crime was being so stupid as to talk to the investigator without an attorney. His second crime was neglecting to hire a competent self-defense attorney.
For this you would have him executed?
I agree with his being sent to prison for a long time. It is a lesson to all of us who carry a gun for self-defense. Do not be stupid. Do not carry without legal defense insurance. Do not carry without knowing the first thing about self-defense law. Do not talk to the police without a self-defense attorney or without having taken Massad Ayoob’s course and understanding what he teaches.
No one is telling you to get high and go shooting. Don’t tell anyone that they lose their rights for smoking some herb @ their house when the guns are put away.
Nothing wrong with that.
You can do what ever you want, we all know what is right and wrong and will have to answer on judgement day.
This is wonderful! That is precisely what we need.
The “addicted to, or unlawful user of, a controlled substance” prohibition can’t pass the Bruen test of the text, history, and tradition.
Set aside whether some controlled substances do impair the judgment of users. Let’s concede that this IS correct in some cases. Nevertheless, it is a distinct matter that: 1) a substance is declared to be “controlled”; and, 2) that its lawful use IS permitted in certain more-or-less controlled circumstances.
If we presume, as I invite you to do, that a substance makes someone dangerous, then THAT is the grounds for arguing that the user may be disarmed. Not that such use was NOT LEGAL as distinguished from another user’s use that is legal.
Testosterone is a controlled substance. Every human – including females – has some testosterone. Males have a lot. And arguably, “testosterone poisoning” makes males dangerous. Is that grounds for disarming all males? Summarily? What about yours truly? I have low testosterone. (Not that that fact provides any relief to my wife.)
I could get a prescription for testosterone. If so, I would be a lawful user—no 2A bar for me.
Or, I could obtain testosterone withOUT a prescription. And use it. I would then be an UN-lawful user. Would that make me more dangerous than I would be if I had a prescription?
Even if I were – counterfactual – naturally high in testosterone and obtained more illegally, would that really make me more dangerous?
And, even if that could be shown convincingly by empirical evidence, where is it written in the “text, history and tradition” (between 1790 and 1870) that the Right of the People to arms had been regulated based on the use of any substance whatsoever? Even substances that WERE recognized to impair men’s judgment, notably alcohol.
The “addicted to, or unlawful user of, a controlled substance” remains the Trogen Horse by which government could disarm large fractions of peaceable gun users.
DOn’t forget that, during the “timeframe in question” more or less establishedby Bruen, use of various substances now labelled as “controlled” was common. Opium use was very common in both England and the Colonies. Laudanum was a compound including marijuana/cannabis as an active ingredient. Alcohol was also common. Had any of those “cubstances” been considered worthy of status of “controlled” government in that day surely would have so done.
Further, I COULD (I too have been done with the weed for multiple decades,despite the fact I could easily qualify for a “medical card”) be in possession of fifty pounds of fine buds, have it adequately pacaged to preserve its quality, and have that sitting in the bottom of my gun safe, not having used any of it personally in two years.Yet the gummit poohbahs would remove my right to arms on that basis alone? No.THis judge has the right of it.
this judge’s ruling, taken along with his impeccable reasoning, SHOULD mean the removal of marijuana from Schedule One status at the federal level, retroactive to the date of its first inclusion as such. Yes, that would mean immediate reversal of EVERY CASE where anyone was convicted of possession/use of the stuff, along with any attendant offense alledged to have been committed based on the “controlled’ status of the substance. Ys, that would also include the full restoration of anyone’s right to arms that was removed on the basis, or even involved with, the use of this substance.
“. . . not having used any of it personally in two years. Yet the gummit poohbahs would remove my right to arms on that basis alone?”
This is an excellent point, but it is subtle. You might have never used it; merely stocking up in case you might need it in the very distant future. Or, you had used it, but some time long before, 2 years or more before. It is not – as a matter of biochemical fact – impairing your judgment. Nevertheless, the prosecutor will present your possession as evidence of your use. You could not produce persuasive evidence that you had not – in fact – used it for so long a period as 2 years. Even if your spouse testified that she had been at your side the entire time, and that she had not seen you use, the jury could disbelieve her testimony.
So your felonious “use” of a “dangerous” substance is constructed entirely circumstantially.
“this judge’s ruling, taken along with his impeccable reasoning, SHOULD mean the removal of marijuana from Schedule One status at the federal level”
The ruling didn’t actually reach the question of Schedule 1 drugs. The ruling noted that the government had the right and power to disarm a person by keeping them in jail for violating drug laws. The ruling was about the limits to disarmament, not the limits to declare and enforce laws regarding “controlled substances”. IOW, disarming a person for use of a drug, while allowing that person to be “out on bond” was/is simply a cheap solution to jailing suspects prior to trial.
“The “addicted to, or unlawful user of, a controlled substance” prohibition can’t pass the Bruen test of the text, history, and tradition.”
Mark, if the ‘Bruen’ standard applies to other enumerated civil rights (and it should), that puts all other drug laws on the chopping block, does it not?
While at first blush I smile, it’s a hard fact making opiates like Percodan available in vending machines will have massively destructive consequences to society…
I agree with you. Bruen sets a precedent for the Original Understanding doctrine to be applied to every Power and Right.
Nevertheless, we should not get too far ahead of the mills of the gods. That’s not the way things happen.
In the case of the 2A there was virtually ZERO precedent at the SCOTUS level as to how to interpret “the right” that is to “not be infringed”. Thomas had a tabla raza on which he could compose a novel doctrine. And that’s what he did.
Generally, the opposite prevails with respect to Powers and other Rights. Take, for example, the 1A. There is a body of doctrines that define how SCOTUS insists that the 1A be interpreted. SCOTUS is not going to be eager to overlay a novel doctrine (text, history, and tradition) on top of very well-settled law which is governed by the method of judicial precedence.
I think there are vastly more compelling arguments that apply to Controlled Substances.
But the most important compelling argument is the force of politics. We the People are slowly – extremely slowly – waking up to the fact that substance prohibition is counterproductive. Alcohol. Pot. And next, psychedelics.
The psychiatry profession is slowly acknowledging that some of these drugs – notably MDMA and psilocybin – really ARE VERY PROMISING. For treating addiction, of all things! To say nothing of depression, suicidal ideation, anxiety, anhedonia, pain, alcoholism and more. As FDA grants Approval of these heretofore Schedule I Controlled Substances the public will clamor for Congress to get it’s shit together. It’s ridiculous to see the States Nullifying the pot prohibition while Congress keeps pot on Schedule I. Eventually, the voters in too many states will start insisting that their Congress-critters do the right thing or be voted out.
As this begins to happen, SCOTUS will start to consider whether to take the pressure off Congress to do the right thing. SCOTUS will see that the public is ready for drug-law reform and SCOTUS can then act with political independence.
Potheads, by their actions consuming the crap, demonstrate that they are idiots if not mentally defective and antisocial. If Wyrick is correct the legislature is going to have to address mind altering narcotics in another manner.
Perhaps Wyrick is just a closet pothead.
opiates are purely anti- social. party of one.
alcohol is both consumed in social gatherings and by closeted imbibers.
mezz? those select few were anti- social long before partaking.
Spoken by someone who has no experience, and is vulnerable to government lies. While it certainly is not as benign as many would have you believe, it certainly doesn’t need to be considered worse than opioids. If the government had been honest about it in the 70s, we might not have so many crackheads now. If they lie about pot, they lie about all of it.
This is absolutely true. It IS scientific fact. And whatever our opinions, passions, and prejudices might be, we are duty-bound to face the facts.
“Controlled Substances” are classified into 5 Schedules. Those in Schedule I are – for practical purposes – prohibited (outside of FDA-authorized trials). Those in other schedules are not prohibited but are very tightly regulated.
If there were any merit whatsoever to an arms prohibition for the unlawful use of Controlled Substances, it ought to be most easily found among those in Schedule I. If there is but a SINGLE example of a drug in Schedule I which was wrongfully so classified, then the entire edifice starts to crumble.
There are about 200 drugs in Schedule I. What is the basis for concluding that they are in some way dangerous? Each and every one of them? The Feds could NOT POSSIBLY assemble the evidence to show that such is the case for every last one of these 200.
As it happens, there is a magnificently deplorable record for one of them, MDMA. It is appalling. Without lawful authority, the DEA put this substance on Schedule I by mere whim. A federal Appeals Court ruled that its Scheduling was NOT lawful. (The unlawfulness was later cured.) DEA acted contrary to the evidence collected in hearings before an administrative law judge.
An organization named MAPS, using donated funds, has worked for 35 years to prove that MDMA does NOT qualify on any of the grounds for being placed on Schedule I. In 18 months or so, FDA WILL Approve this drug to treat PTSD.
There is absolutely not a scintilla of evidence that MDMA has an adverse effect undermining the good judgment of its users while NOT under its influence. (During the 12 or so hours during its use, the user is neither in a good position to use a gun nor has he any inclination to do so. To the contrary, his empathy soars. He would more licely embrace his wife’s lover than raise his hand in anger.)
I (lawfully) use a different Controlled Substance. I can make these same or comparable statements about my “drug of choice”. There is not one scintilla of evidence that a user of this substance could operate a firearm while under its influence or could be provoked into doing so if able.
I’ve given you two examples. One from Schedule I, the other from Schedule III, for which the evidence from the records in each case, and personal experience in the second case, to support my assertion that it is scientific nonsense that these two substances threaten the safety of others with respect to unlawful use of arms.
If these two exist, what do you suppose the probability might be that there are others among the hundreds (perhaps thousands) of Controlled Substances?
What we are dealing with is a pure presupposition, opinion, prejudice, and taboo. Equivalent to baring protestants or baring Catholics from arms.
If we, the PotG, refuse to open our eyes to our own prejudices, how can we hope to persuade our opponents and neighbors to look at the right to arms in a rational light?
You miss the point. It is a point of law, not of fact. Let me draw this out for you.
Let us suppose that you were right as a point of fact: “the crap, demonstrate that they are idiots if not mentally defective and antisocial”. Pot is conceded to be “crap”. And it’s users are conceded to be “idiots”. And “mentally defective”. And “antisocial”.
Nevertheless, the Bruen test IS NOW the law of the land. And, we are a nation of laws not men. We men – ignoring our wives for the moment – may all be unanimous in our supposition that all of the pretexts you have recited are scientifically true. Nevertheless, it is the prosecutor’s job to persuade a judge and jury that there is a sufficient body of evidence from “text, history and tradition” from 1790 – 1870 to show that We the People deemed such facts to disable a citizen from immunity from infringement from the right to arms.
Consumers of crap who are idiots and mentally defective, to say nothing of antisocial, have a natural right to arms which may not be infringed unless it can be shown that that right was intended to exclude such cases. This can NOT be shown.
What we are dealing with here, as with nearly all gun-control laws, is pure opinion and prejudice. The English Bill of Rights prejudiced the right to arms by protestants above those of all others. That is because Charles prejudiced the right of Catholics above the protestants.
Shall we have a debate about what the law is? Or about what our opinions and prejudices are? If we choose the former, we will be protected from democracy (mob rule). If we choose the latter, we conceded to our fate at the hands of whomsoever can inflame the passions of our fellow citizens.
What a load of hot garbage. You think marijuana users are mentally defective, meanwhile, alcohol users enjoy full gun rights and the ability to engage in the stupidest behaviors leading to the deaths of thousands of innocent people. But hey, alcohol users aren’t anti-social.
Well, that was as fine a demonstration of ignorant bigotry as I’ve seen in a long time!
He really should be congratulated for his inimitable exemplification of prejudice. Truly a textbook example…
My comments will surely bring out dire of the drug users. Marijuana is not a harmless drug. There are numerous documented medical studies prove that extended Marijuana use during adolescence is a precursor to schizophrenia onset on late teens and early 20’s. Although, alcohol use can also cause similar results. Even if a Marijuana user does not incur mental issues, have you ever talked with people who use Marijuana on a regular basis? Most users, (not all) make some serious bad life decisions. Not the type of people I would want to associate with or trust. Just my opinion. But then again, I prefer my car drivers, airline pilots and firearm handlers to be sober.
whistlestopfusebox jeep drivers may get lost but they never get stuck.
your opinion is easily understood. this ruling is importantly correct nevertheless.
“whistlestopfusebox jeep drivers may get lost but they never get stuck.”
Drunks crash their cars, potheads miss their exits… 🙂
“o! the horror!”
I prefer my car drivers, airline pilots and firearm handlers to be sober.
as do most of us. Bear in mind that when one imbibes larger quantities of alcohol one should certainly separate himself from firearms during the time he is “compromised” in his faculties. And we do this.. no driving, piloting boats or aircraft, no use of firearms when in this condition.
But we all agree that, once one’s systeme has metabolised the “substance” and the person has regained all his faculties, there is no retroactive prohibition from firearms. The same standard must also apply to any other temporarily debilitating/intoxicating use of any other substance….. including marijuana.
gotcha. defenseless while most vulnerable it is.
If that bullshit was true we would have 200,000,000 schizophrenics in the US. I know when I was a teen, 90% of us in the 70s, smoked. I know more people that climbed into a bottle and ruined their life.
That pot is NOT harmLESS in certain cases is NOT the point.
My Controlled Substance of choice is NOT FREE of harm. I could damage – possibly even destroy – my urinary tract because I use my Controlled Substance. And this is the case whether or not I have a prescription. (I do have a prescription).
So what?
How does the possibility that I might destroy my urinary tract impair the safety of others from my unlawful use of firearms? Is SELF-abuse a factor in public safety? (Is masturbation a factor in public safety? If so, few among us could retain our right to arms).
Even if we suppose that my use of my drug-of-choice was unlawful (it is lawful, I have a prescription), AND we suppose my use was excessive – and NOT therapeutic – the exclusive consequence is confined to the destruction of my own urinary tract and possible addiction.
How is it that some public safety interest justifies baring me from the exercise of my natural right to arms? Under the Bruen test of text, history, and tradition, there is ZERO evidence. My drug was invented in the 1960s based on a drug invented in the 1950s. There was absolutely no substance known to any civilization that bears the slightest resemblance to MY Controlled Substance. Under such circumstances, how can an AG possibly assemble evidence for text, history, and tradition? Construct the argument to the contrary! That is your challenge.
You might think me to be a dirty rotten scoundrel. (Perhaps you have consulted my wife.) Yet, you would not bar me from arms on THAT account. You may be appalled that I use a substance that has the effects it has on my mind and body. You might WISH to bar me on those grounds, or, alternatively, because I am a protestant. You might insist that Pennsylvania police power to regulate morality entitles it to forbid my use of my drug of choice.
Still, the law of the Bruen test is NOT on your side with respect to excluding my drug use from the immunity from infringement on my right to arms.
And that – my fellow PotG – is the difficulty with the “addicted to, or unlawful user of, a Controlled Substance” law. It simply fails to stand up to the Bruen test.
Do you support the Bruen test?
Or will you argue against the Bruen test?
Your choice.
baring: present participle of bare.
Some folks look good bare, others I hope never to see bare… 🙂
We have laws which bar baring in public.
“Marijuana use during adolescence is a precursor to schizophrenia onset on late teens and early 20’s“
Causation has not been demonstrated, this is just an association.
It is just as possible that those who are genetically disposed toward young adult onset schizophrenia begin self-medicating with cannabis in their adolescent years.
Give five guys a bottle of whiskey and they’ll start a fight.
Give five guys a bag of pot and they’ll start a band.
I wonder if FPS Russia could eventually get his 2A rights restored? Pretty sure he got busted for weed possession.
“He also used Bruen in his conclusion that marijuana use doesn’t make anyone a ‘dangerous lunatic.’
Actually, he said “the mere use of marijuana does not indicate that someone is in fact dangerous, let alone analogous to a ‘dangerous lunatic.’ ” and that’s not the same thing as “doesn’t make anyone a ‘dangerous lunatic.’
The ‘mere use’ doesn’t. But numerous studies have pointed that cannabis use does not come with zero risks. Research suggests that daily cannabis users have a higher risk of developing psychotic disorders, depending on the potency of the cannabis; one study showed a 3.2 to 5 times higher risk (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(19)30048-3/fulltext).
So now you know why dacian is psychotic.
… not really, not without blood tests anyway. What IS evident, however, is that he was repeatedly dropped on his head with attendant brain damage.
So what?
If this person IS, in FACT, a “lunatic,” then the state HAS the power to commit him to confinement in a mental hospital.
He loses his right to arms under the commitment provision if that occurs.
It might be that the commitment provision would fail the Bruen test. But that question is not before us. Nor is it likely to come before us in a case of a person who is demonstrably a lunatic even after release from commitment.
It might be that a person voting for candidates of the “wrong” political party has a non-negligible probability of MAKING him a lunatic. Or that such a pattern of voting is evidence of EXISTING mental incapacity. We PotG are – I believe – open to such arguments. Nevertheless, none of us would accept even strong proof of such a proposition to strip a person of his right to arms.
I remember an online discussion I had with a “dangerous lunatic” of the left.
S/he argued that heroine was SO dangerous that we MUST legalize it dilute the danger and in the same discussion that guns are SO dangerous that we must ban them all to address the danger.
You cant make this stuff up.
Good on the Judge; I agree with him. I dont partake in the use of cannabis but I know many who do.
With rulings like this you gain hippy allies and lose Fudd allies.
I’d rather have the hippies. They want mostly what I want: clean soil, air and water, no wars and to generally be left alone.
Fudds are old warhawk coots climbing up everyones ass to force them to behave a certain way.
Why did they prosecute him for this crime, wouldn’t violation of his supervised release have been enough? Heck I seem to recall something in the 4473s about not being in a state of supervised release.
that 4473 is the form to purchase/acquire a firearm. That does not mean one’s right to possess what he already possesses is dependent upon the answwers to those questions.
Terms of release should specify if his right to arms is being suspended during the pendancy of the legal matter. Since the judge did not address whether the terms of release disarmed the man, it is not pertinent in this case. He’d been busted on the SOLE excuse his simple possession (not even use) of weed disarmed him.
This is a serious issue in the legal marinuana industry. Folks cannot use the ormal banking systems due to some stupid laws. Crime/theft/armed robery of transporters and deliverers of marinuana legally sold is rampant, and LE often assume those transporting large amounts of money or any product while armed are breaking the law. This forces del
ivery drivers to either go unarmed, thus vulnerable and defenseless, or break the supposed “law’ and carry while o duty. Some dealers go sofar as having to hire two cars and two crews.. one to carry the marijuana, which car is gun-free, the other for armed security for the product in the other car. The guys driving the product car are not using the stuff bout would be in possession of it, thus unlawfully armed prior to this decision.
The “illegal” sections of the industry are already vulnerable to the bust for illegal operation.
so who says the fudds have to start using weed? Let them abstain, I don’t care. I abstain.. so what? No connexion with my use/possession of firearms.
Lotta boomers still believe in that reefer madness, huh?
Recreational use of marijuana should not deny someone their constitutional right to bear arms, period.
I can pound beers with the boys on the weekend until I’m absolutely sloppy, fall-down drunk. Not a felon.
But god forbid someone else wants to smoke a joint and kick back in their favorite chair after a long day at work. Instantly a criminal fiend, and an awful person, unfit for firearm ownership.
What I’ll be interested to see is if there is a test case filed to remove the question from the 4473.
Even if §922(g)(3) is declared unconstitutional and an injunction is entered to prohibit BATFE / DOJ from enforcing it (at least as to weed use), if it remains on the 4473 and you lie about it, the feds can still get you for the false statement.
Unless, of course, your name is Hunter Biden.
I want to see the 4473 removed in its entirety. You should be able to purchase a firearm without interrogation.
When I was a kid you could buy guns in the hardware without background checks or waits and we did mail order guns from magazines and Sears.
I want reparations for all the denial of my civil rights the .gov is guilty of.
Someone wants to smoke out and sit in the corner and giggle? Ok. Just do as most of us do with alcohol use. Put the guns away before using our poison of choice.
All I got from the couple times I tried pot in the long ago was a nasty headache.
Now, Meth is illegal. But, back in the day Uncle Sam handed it out like skittles. Real Methamphetamines. Not the chemical cocktails brewed up from whatever is under the sink.
Marijuana was legal, as was cocaine and opium. Until someone saw a person with darker skin than theirs using it instead of buying the over priced bad moonshine they were selling.
Yes, most of the early drug laws were based on racism.
While it’s bound to have happened, I have yet to run into a pothead who was violent or attacked anything other than the junk food section at the convenience store.
To each their own. Just don’t expect every job to allow it and expect consequences when you get caught under the influence when you shouldn’t be. It’s that simple. Same as any other drug. I am glad to see the whole “MJ isn’t addicting” losing it’s footage though. It’s very clear that it is. But not everyone that uses it is an addict.
For me, I can’t smoke. Smoking anything turns me into an instant addict. I love the feeling. I’ve had issues with it in the past etc etc. Then I tried some edibles. Totally different world. Still the same feeling and what not, but I don’t feel the addiction from it. I can buy a 10 pack of gummies, cut them into 1/3rds and take one once a week or a couple days in a row, or one and then not want one for another month. I have no issues with edibles. But they still cause the same sort of after effects when you take too much and for me, the high lingers longer. Which is why I take a lot less. When I was smoking – it was 100% pure addiction. It was REALLY bad. Crazy to think that it’s just from MJ too, but it took control of everything I did. I don’t feel that way with edibles at all.
So to each their own. If you want to drink a beer, have a toke, eat a cookie, smoke a cigarette, take an advil, drink a soda… whatever. You do you. Just be aware that you can be addicted to anything and know your limits. The government needs to stay the fuck out of it. That said, are there some drugs much much worse than others? Clearly. fentanyl, cocaine, heroine, etc etc… so where do we draw the line? When is it the governments business to say what we can and cannot do? The truth is, you can’t have it both ways. You are either free or not. So if you support one, you need to support the whole scope of it. Best thing you can do is raise awareness to the dangers and provide safe spaces and help for those abusers. I mean, even with AA now they tell you to avoid things like porn and caffeine… so it’s really all the same kind of game.
“Smoking anything turns me into an instant addict. I love the feeling“
Classic Freud‘s ‘oral fixation’.
I just came to see how high the soap boxes got stacked on this topic
LIKE DUNK DRIVING HAVE WAIT TILL YA KILL SOME ONE ??? THEN JAIL TIME AND LOOSE YA RIGHTS TO OWN A GUN ??
Well, like I said, dopers will not like facts that matter. While THC, the active ingredient in marijuana will leave your mental facility possibly intact after a few hours, it will actually remain in fat cells for up to forty days. So, yes it is still in your body. Autopsies of users have proven this in toxicology test results.
Marijuana is currently still against Federal law, therefore, financial proceeds associated to its growing, harvesting and sale, cannot be knowingly deposited in a FDIC insured banking system. It would be illegal and construed to be money laundering as being proceeds from illegal activity. But, hey as long as I don’t have any interaction with you, knock yourself out. It is your life to destroy. Sorry, starting to sound like Kamala Harris’s word salad.
“it will actually remain in fat cells for up to forty days“
Unless you’re thinking with your ass, that’s not really a problem.
And the fact is, obesity is the number one risk factor in many mortalities.
Logic and observation doesn’t work for you, so fuck you wally.
And this is why you can’t have meaningful verbal interaction with drug addicts. It always results in name calling.
Never cared for it myself, it made me “crawl under the table and hide” paranoid, so it wasn’t a pleasant experience the times I tried it in the mid 70’s.
I don’t really care if they legalize it or not, but I would point out that crime does rise in the State’s that have legalized it, In spite of the False Narrative that’s pushed by proponents of legalization. I’ve seen the real crime Stats for Colorado, and there is definitely an increase in Burglary and Theft.
My biggest concern is that Cannabis, just like Alcohol, does impair those who imbibe. Unlike Alcohol, no quick test yet exists to accurately measure impairment levels, nor has any standard been accepted, largely because the level of impairment is very individualized. That’s presented legal issues for Law Enforcement.
One thing I have noticed, only because I’m still in contact with some of my peers that started at the time I tried it, and continued to use throughout their adult lives, is that it stunts emotional/developmental maturity. The handful I know still act and behave like they’re still 16, 17 or 18, even though they’re now well into their 60’s when they’re high. With that, they do the stupid things that age group typically pulls.
In MY experience…
One thing I have noticed, only because I’m still in contact with MOST of my peers that started DRINKING at the time I tried it, and continued to DRINK throughout their adult lives, is that it stunts emotional/developmental maturity. The OVERWHELMING MAJORITY I know still act and behave like they’re still 16, 17 or 18, even though they’re now well into their 60’s when they DRINK.
Comments are closed.