In the ongoing battle over cannabis use and gun ownership, a Texas district judge recently ruled that smoking marijuana does not automatically negate a person’s Second Amendment-protected right to keep and bear arms.
One portion of the Gun Control Act of 1968 makes it illegal for anyone using marijuana or other banned narcotics to purchase or own a firearm. In fact, the form used by the National Instant Background Check (NICS) system specifically asks purchasers if they use marijuana or other illegal controlled substances. Courts have recently weighed in with rulings on both sides of the spectrum, some declaring the law unconstitutional with others upholding the law.
According to a recent report at thereload.com, on December 30, U.S. District Judge David Briones of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas ruled in the case U.S. v. Gil that pot users are among “the people” mentioned in the Second Amendment and other amendments to the Bill of Rights.
Consequently, the judge dismissed a criminal indictment against an El Paso man caught with multiple bags of marijuana and firearms in his home. The judge determined that the government couldn’t prove the man was high at the time of his arrest, so his prosecution represented an unconstitutional application of the federal law that bans drug users from owning firearms.
“The coverage of the Second Amendment is broad at this stage of the analysis and the language of the Second Amendment is clear on this point,” Judge Briones wrote in the ruling. “The Bill of Rights uses the phrase ‘the people’ five times. In each place, it refers to all members of our political community, not a special group of upright citizens.”
According to court documents, officers arrested Adrian Gil in 2021 after being called to his house over a fight involving a firearm. There, they discovered at least two large vacuum-sealed bags of marijuana and multiple guns.
The arresting officers said Gil admitted to being a daily user of marijuana since the age of 14 and acknowledged that he knew marijuana users could not legally own firearms. He was subsequently indicted, pled guilty and was sentenced to 35 months in prison before he moved to appeal his charges on constitutional grounds.
Using the precedent set in the Bruen decision for determining Second Amendment cases, Judge Brionne first looked at whether the plain text of the amendment covered Gil’s conduct. It then analyzed the second Bruen standard—whether there is a historical tradition of such a law from the founding period.
Ultimately, the judge determined that Gil’s conduct was protected, and the government could not provide evidence of such a historical standard.
“While the Government goes to great lengths to disclose that Defendant ‘admitted being a daily user of marihuana since age 14′ and that Defendant ‘just like[d] good weed,’ it does nothing in the way of proving that Defendant was intoxicated by marijuana at the time of this incident, or at the time he was arrested,” Briones concluded. “In line with the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning in Connelly, this Court agrees that ‘based on habitual or occasional drug use, § 922(g)(3) imposes a far greater burden on [Defendant’s] Second Amendment rights than our history and tradition of firearms regulation can support.’”
“While the Government goes to great lengths to disclose that Defendant ‘admitted being a daily user of marihuana since age 14′ ”
So it’s a good thing that children are smoking weed at age 14???
But smoking tobacco at age 14 is bad???
And now I see how we got to the point of supporting chopping off the sex organs of kids, at age 14. And also without their parents knowledge or consent.
“Skipping towards gomorrah”
Was the title of a book written by dan savage, a g a y atheist many years ago. He was very hopeful for his version of happiness coming true in america.
Kids drink alcohol at 14 all the time – is that good?
Of course not, but we’re not jailing people who drink alcohol and own firearms, now are we?
No, but we do arrest children who buy their own guns and open carry them. It use to be legal for a 16 year old to purchase his or her own gun.
And it was still illegal for a children to smoke tabocco.
You’ve lost the point
You are avoiding my point. The pot heads have always supported children smoking weed.
And the pot heads have never supported children who are trained by their parents, to be responsible when using guns.
Perhaps in your world of irresponsibility. Not in normal well-adjusted society.
Not only that, MJ is a depressant, and steals your motivation, your very thoughts. It f*s you up and makes you useless. It gives you the munchies, so you eat a bunch of garbage.
Tobacco contains nicotine, a stimulant, that, while addictive, at least revs you up and makes you more alert, enhances your thoughts and perception, and controls your appetite.
I would argue that the entire nation was built with nicotine, and things have gotten worse since it has largely disappeared from society.
Lmfao you get your “facts” the same place the abti-2A people do huh? Fantasy land.
*anti
fyi
Weed has always been a more dangerous substance to smoke than tobacco.
to Johnny LeBlanc
I think industrial hemp, cotton, and tobacco, all played a major role in making America, a financially successful very young country.
Unfortunately the pot heads only care about the THC. They don’t care about talking and informing others, about the over 100 other useful things, people use weed for. And they have nothing to do with medical treatment.
All they care about is getting intoxicated. And they drive home, work on automobile brakes, fly a passenger airplane, or perform brain surgery. All while under the influence of weed.
They see nothing wrong with that. They think alcohol and guns don’t mix. But they do think weed and guns do mix very well together.
Unlike alcohol which gives you lots of energy and improves your decision-making ability and responsible thinking, right? Smoking pot isn’t good for you, and neither is drinking too much, but there is no statute against buying or owning a gun if you drink. If there were, almost no one would be able to own a gun. Wouldn’t that make the antis happy? It’s a silly restriction since alcohol is at the center of far more problems than pot has ever been.
“So it’s a good thing that children are smoking weed at age 14???”
Banning adults from using it has no impact. Everyone in high school smoked weed, drank alcohol, and smoked cigarettes illegally. Get out of here you prohibitionists socialist with your straw mans.
“But smoking tobacco at age 14 is bad???”
You just create more criminals. Bad is subjective.
“And now I see how we got to the point of supporting chopping off the sex organs of kids, at age 14. And also without their parents knowledge or consent.”
lol slippery slope fallacy. We got to this point through people like you who take responsibility away from the parents. Wtf do you think you advocate with your prohibitionist ideas and locking kids up for stuff.
““Skipping towards gomorrah”
Was the title of a book written by dan savage, a g a y atheist many years ago. He was very hopeful for his version of happiness coming true in america.”
I think you are totally illiterate on economics, ethics and what rights are. I think you are dirt savage socialist.
When will the pot heads growers start paying their far share of business taxes???
Since they said pot should be made legal. And they said it should be taxed just like tobacco. So in their own words, “the government could make more money.”
Chris the dispensaries pay quite a substantial tax on marijuana sales as do the purchasers.
I’ve noticed you mention “free marijuana ” quite often. Where do I find this “free marijuana “? Please do not tell me it’s under the Gun Free Zones because I have yet to find a free gun there.
Pot smokers cut the nuts off their babies. Wow . In your world wouldn’t that be a good thing?
Sounds like to me your Freedom is what an oppressive government permits as long as it only applies to ‘them’.
Because.
You post often of carrying a concealed weapon in your classroom regardless of the schools policy against it.
Is Freedom the power to suppress those who do not share the same ideals as others , or is Freedom all inclusive?
Dictator is not a potato with a penis.
You sir are a champagne so. ci-.a. list. Or perhaps you are a champagne libertarian??
“Everyone in high school smoked weed, drank alcohol, and smoked cigarettes illegally.” – what kind of degenerate inbred community”. sad/pathetic. Potheads always have to rationalize their stupidity.
The appropriate question is: Under the Constitution, is this any of .gov’s business at the federal level?
If no, then not only shouldn’t there be laws about it at the federal level, any laws that are created are void and immoral because they violate the bounds placed on .gov by the Constitution and anyone enforcing or attempting to enforce them is a criminal and should come with extremely stiff penalties administered upon conviction.
Whether or not the thing in question is morally or ethically “good” for society or promotes health or disease or is just plain distasteful is ENTIRELY IRRELIVANT to the conversation unless you’re actually a Leftist at base.
Plenty of good ideas are unconstitutional and plenty of bad ideas are perfectly constitutional. That ain’t new.
This is why I constantly complain that Conservatives have few if any actual principles and are actually just Leftists with a different set of policy preferences: Because the Right is more than willing to throw the Constitution in the trash and light it on fire as soon as you show them a behavior they disapprove of. It’s, quite frankly, disgusting and in a rational world would earn them well deserved public scorn and probably a lot of throat punches.
The Constitution does not grant the power to the Federal Government to regulate marijuana except within the confines of the Commerce Clause where said marijuana is involved in interstate commerce, preferably in a pre-Wickard sense of the term.
That leaves this as a 10A situation, state by state.
Past that, the government has no authority and trying to take or enforce such authority is an affront to the text and the spirit of the Constitution and the very notion of a free people. Everyone involved in taking a paycheck to enforce such things should face serious punishment for their transgressions.
Don’t like it? Then you need to hear what the antigunners need to hear: Propose an Amendment and get it passed or kick rocks.
The fact that the Right is so out-to-lunch on this kind of thing is exactly how you got the SCOTUS ramming ghey marriage down your throat. Because you simply couldn’t bring yourselves step back and leave marriage to churches and everything else to contract law. No, you had to get on your knees and fellate the state to protect the status quo of marriage licenses.
And like everything else, ignorance of your own bad behavior is not an excuse. An explanation perhaps, but not an excuse. Though, to be fair, I’d be more than happy to grant an excuse provided that the Right every learned from its mistakes and stopped making them but that is, apparently, far, far, far too much to ask.
The sad thing about this is how the 2A community is full of people who will defend the commerce clause’s current application post-Wickard bEcaUsE mUh DanGeRouZ DrUgZ! without recognizing that most federal level gun control rests on Wickard.
Are you willing to, at a single stroke, get your gun rights back at the federal level by putting the Commerce Clause back in its original box if it means you also have to end the War on Drugs?
I’d guess not. Because telling other people how they should behave, even when it doesn’t affect you, is exactly most people’s cup of tea.
As long as the pot heads demand that conservatives give their blessings to their foolish and self-destructive activities. Then the pot heads really believe in tyranny.
No free person is required to give their blessing to anything that they don’t approve of.
And that is why I say the h-o m’ose’x ua-ls and ath.eist.s support slavery in the 21st century. They demand christians perform work against their will.
“You will bake that gsy wedding cake”
“You will perform abortions”
“You will pay for the needles and condoms of drug users”
“You will pay more in taxes to fund these activities”
Those and many more are the demands of the dr’ u g le-ga liz. ati on cro.wd. And they support using government force in order make people comply.
The pot heads believe in slavery to the state.
You talk about weed smokers the same way antigun people talk about gun owners.
I think you just hate weed more than you like the 2A.
The weed smokers are directly responsible for the citizens of the state of california, losing their civil rights. And losing their property rights.
They wrote and voted for prop 47. They want to enable drug use by making it much easier to steal private property. So addicts can pay for the drugs.
“The appropriate question is: Under the Constitution, is this any of .gov’s business at the federal level?”
This! ^ IDGAF what your personal opinion is about whether it’s more harmful than tobacco or alcohol or your over-generalizations about “the potheads”. Bottom line is that the Fed has zero business deciding who can and cannot use/carry firearms. The main problem? Consequences for being irresponsible are minimal to non-existent. Make the consequences for misuse (of marijuana or firearms) serious enough and the idiots will take care of themselves.
Also, I agree that it is more harmful than tobacco. Alcohol not so much. And, unfortunately, most of the over-generalizations are pretty spot on.
he also described the word santorum as “the frothy mix of anal lube and feces.”
I don’t understand???
Are you referring to legal butt sex and drugs???
Why are we (the 2A community) wasting precious court time and legal resources on recreational vegetables when I can’t even carry in 1/3rd of the states???!!!
I’ve asked that question of the pot heads in california. Since that is the land of the Mulford Act.
And the pot heads politically control california.
Who comes into contact with the legal system a d what kind of funds do they have access to? Also look at the state involved. Not my first pick on a lot of issues but ultimately one less brick in the wall.
The pot heads are a dishonest group of people. And exploit some very medically sick people. In order to fool the voting population.
The truth about weed.
And yes it really does have some medical uses. And so does drinking alcohol. And it gets lied about and abused too.
1.
Smoking marijuana can harm more than just the lungs and respiratory system—it can also affect the immune system and the body’s ability to fight disease, …Sep 9, 2024
h
ttps://www.lung.org › marijuana-…
Marijuana and Lung Health | American Lung Association
2.
used cannabis daily had a 25% increased risk of heart attack and a 42% increased risk of stroke compared to non-users.Feb 28, 2024
h
ttps://www.ucsf.edu › 2024/02
Think Smoking Cannabis Won’t Damage Your Heart … – UCSF
3.
Cleveland Clinic
h
ttps://my.clevelandclinic.org › 43…
Marijuana (Cannabis, Weed): What It Is, Side Effects & Risks
Smoking any product, including marijuana, can damage your lungs, increase your risk of bronchitis and scar small blood vessels…
4.
Colorado Cannabis (.gov)
h
ttps://cannabis.colorado.gov › ad…
Marijuana: Additional health effects for adults…
Marijuana smoke irritates the lungs. · People who smoke marijuana daily or near-daily may have a daily cough, bronchitis, mucus and…
“The potheads are a dishonest group of people. ”
You must certainly get around because that is a lot of marijuana users to meet and pass judgment on.
Again – Potheads always have to rationalize their stupidity. You can not find a more rapid group of religious zealots.
Guns and Marijuana FBI Issues Little Noticed Memo But Founding Fathers Might Differ | 2nd Life Media Alamogordo Town News
https://2ndlifemediaalamogordo.town.news/g/alamogordo-nm/n/229096/guns-and-marijuana-fbi-issues-little-noticed-memo-founding-fathers-might
Chris the dispensaries pay quite a substantial tax on marijuana sales as do the purchasers.
I’ve noticed you mention “free marijuana ” quite often. Where do I find this “free marijuana “? Please do not tell me it’s under the Gun Free Zones because I have yet to find a free gun there.
Pot smokers cut the nuts off their babies. Wow . In your world wouldn’t that be a good thing?
Sounds like to me your Freedom is what an oppressive government permits as long as it only applies to ‘them’.
Because.
You post often of carrying a concealed weapon in your classroom regardless of the schools policy against it.
Is Freedom the power to suppress those who do not share the same ideals as others , or is Freedom all inclusive?
Dictator is not a potato with a peni$.
The government has been giving away “free” medical care. For many decades now.
That has included “free” medical marijuana and “free” fentanyl introductory kits. And “free” syringes.
If you don’t know that? Then I don’t know what to tell you.
“Free” government medical marijuana dispensaries are in San Francisco, Seattle, Portland Oregon and other cities.
You can even get a “free” government doctor. At a ” free” government injection center. To monitor you so you don’t die of a drug overdose. From all the drugs that you voluntarily put into your own body.
Now if you have followed what I have said. Then you know that I’m on record supporting making drugs legal.
But I don’t support government supplying you with your drugs of choice. Where is that in the constitution???
Where does it say in the constitution that you get “free” condoms to help stop the spread of AIDS??? Or “free” needles.
“Free” government drug rehab??
Where is that in the constitution???
As I have said before. The pot heads do not believe Liberty.
Because they don’t want the responsibility and the consequences that go along with it. But they do want “free stuff.”
As I have said before on TTAG. Over 100 years ago drugs were legal. And it was also legal to kill drug addicts who stole private property, in order to pay for their drug addiction.
Most of them died of exposure during a cold night outdoors. No “free” government housing back then.
And it was also legal to kill drug addicts who stole private property, in order to pay for their drug addiction.
This is generally speaking untrue, at least it’s a hell of a lot more nuanced than you suggest here.
18th and 19th century law on the subject mostly required that the “defender” use force requisite to the “harm prevented” and that it happen at the moment of the theft, during an attempt to stop the theft itself. Inasmuch it was mostly what we’d consider “self defense” today.
You couldn’t just drop bodies to prevent minor thefts.
Killing to prevent relatively minor monetary loss was not legal in the vast, vast majority of cases unless things had already escalated to self defense. One had to show that the potential loss was significant enough to cause extreme risk to the loser/family of the loser in order to just poke a rifle out the window and pop someone for theft.
This is where some of the ideas about killing for horse rustling come from. However, in those cases one still had to show that the loss of the horse would be a serious threat to the person/people losing it and they had to attempt to stop the person in the act for violence to be justified without a legitimate attempt to simply stop the theft.
Stealing your only horse, or your only plow horse, might justify outright killing without warning whereas stealing one of several would not be considered to rise to that level and killing someone purely for theft in the latter case could, and sometimes did, earn the property owner a one-way trip to the gallows.
Quite a number of people went to the noose for gearing up a posse to go after horse rustlers after the fact without a judge’s signoff being obtained beforehand to create a posse designed for apprehension rather than vengeance.
Which is all a pretty round-about way of pointing out that 18th and 19th century law mostly comported with far older laws where the punishment is supposed to fit the crime and summarily dispensing overly aggressive “justice” was, itself, a crime.
The thing I really don’t understand about your comments on this topic, prolific as they are, is why you are not advocating for judicial reform to move back to the ancient idea of “restorative justice” (not the modern version of this hijacked by the Left).
Instead, for some reason that is rather beyond me, you seem to prefer to keep the all-power-and-glory-to-the-State model that we’ve foolishly failed to discard from the Middle Ages while simply adding your ability to shoot people for minor property infractions. This is taking an already poorly mixed system and making it worse, not better. As I’ve pointed out before, the Egyptians figured out the issues with this many thousands of years ago when they accidentally created a legal means for murder and feud settlement.
“This is where some of the ideas about killing for horse rustling come from.”
The modern version of that is perfectly legal in Florida, lethal force is legal during a carjacking attempt. It even stretches that to include bicycles, as one bike-jacker found out the hard way…
“You post often of carrying a concealed weapon in your classroom regardless of the schools policy against it.”
Do you understand what it means when someone says they will not comply???
Yes I do.
Marijuana is federally illegal, people still smoke it.
Freedom goes beyond just one person’s ideals.
I do agree with you on the free shit . If you can’t afford your habit you should not be doing it no matter what that habit may be.
Pot is not the most damaging habit people take on.
Nor is alcohol. Or cigarettes, or chew. Or heroin, for that matter.
No no. The most damaging thing is our education system. And continuing to vote for the SAME education system over and over again.
As for all that other stuff, I don’t care what you do to your own body. Just don’t make me pay for it. Don’t make me pay for your lung cancer, your cirrhosis, your failing kidneys or your blood sugar or diabetes. I don’t even want to know about that rash on your peen. Don’t tell, and I won’t ask.
And don’t make me pay for the poor judgment you exercised by getting in your car when you were unfit to drive.
Don’t make me pay for it in bodily harm to myself or those I love, don’t make me pay for it by having to care for them after you crashed into them half-blind with MJ or catnip, or whatever the eff was in your bloodstream, and DON’T you dare make me pay for your liver transplant in increased taxes.
I don’t care to overanalyze the societal impact of your doobie-toking. But when it affects me and my family, or my share of the cost of insurance or government, well then now we need to talk. And if you damaged me or mine, we might need to talk about prison for you. Because negligence.
I don’t smoke (anything), I rarely drink, and I believe that you caused an injury or death because of stupidity, you should go to prison for a long time. No, I don’t care if your 5 year old kid won’t see his dad for 15 years. Be a better dad. Be a better man.
The judge determined that the government couldn’t prove the man was high at the time of his arrest, so his prosecution represented an unconstitutional application of the federal law that bans drug users from owning firearms.
I’ve said here before that I’ve long wondered how this would eventually work out based on the meaning of “user”.
When viewed from the point of view of a somewhat similar term “driver” we have pretty hard lines about when and how one becomes or ceases to be a driver. “User” OTOH, .gov has left intentionally vague so that they can selectively apply the term to as many cases as they’d like.
“OTOH, .gov has left intentionally vague so that they can selectively apply the term to as many cases as they’d like.”
Just the way they want it, as books like “Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent” points out :
h ttps://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
Today, Jan 6th, 2025 … certification of the election of Trump today will also be more than just certification of the election even though that is its purpose and intent officially…. it also indirectly certifies: Trump won in both the Electoral College and the popular vote, tore up the ‘blue wall’ and re-built it with ‘red bricks’, snatched the swing states away from the Harris campaign grasp, showed the incompetence and marx – ist socia -lism of Harris, and delivered a stunning and massive political ass-kicking to Harris and the democrat party and the left-wing liberals they will be ‘feeling’ for a long time, the personal defeat of Harris, and the beginning of unburdening us from what has been.
So lets see how it goes today.
Harris has said she is going to carry out her duty to certify. Hopefully she will be sober and hopefully she will do it without another disconnected-from-reality word salad so we can be further ‘unburdened by what has been’. If she intentionally doesn’t carry out her duty, or the democrats in congress interfere to prevent the certification, they will be for a 100% fact in insurrection against the constitution.
Liberal Left wing violent extremist have been organizing for an actual violent insurrection against government, actually calling it that, supposedly planning and coordinating with elements of a heavily armed ANTIFA and other left wing violent extremist… if they carry out their threats maybe they will try to hang Harris although I hope not. But who really knows, so lets see what happens.
Life Choices: Rapper 2 Low’s Negligent Dischage on Host Mike D’s Podcast Goes Viral [VIDEO] (note: while smoking pot and the pot world probably would say “thank god he didn’t drop his joint.”)
h ttps://www.shootingnewsweekly.com/gun-nation/life-choices-rapper-2-lows-negligent-dischage-on-host-mike-ds-podcast-goes-viral-video/
Ban Cars & Trucks To Save Lives, The Uncomfortable Truth In The New Orleans Attack.
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8FWl1htyWU
If everyone owned a horse someone’s bound to get kicked.
We’re still trying to get our rights back after the 1968 treason. Shaking my head (smh)
I used to do a little weed back in the 60’s on a Saturday nights. Back then it was nothing like this strong stuff they have today.I quit when I became a cop! Now retired I don’t dare touch this stuff thats out there today. The old stuff just gave you a pleasant buzz and the munchies.