XPost: alt.politics.marijuana, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.republicans XPost: sac.politics, law.court.federal

Should marijuana users be prohibited from owning a gun?

Historically, laws existed to keep people who were intoxicated from
carrying firearms because they were potentially dangerous, which is how
some people justify the prohibition.

The thing is, the ban is for people who use them at all. They're not
prohibited from handling them when they're under the influence, but can't
own one at all if they're a user, even if it's legal in their state.

That's because marijuana hasn't been rescheduled, and this is considered
an illegal drug with no medical benefit, even though its benefits have
been long documented.

Because of that, the prohibition stands, though many argue it shouldn't.

Now, the Supreme Court is set to discuss the matter in September.

Amid a smattering of recent court cases across the country casting doubt
on the constitutionality of the federal government’s blanket ban on
firearm possession by marijuana users—a law known as Section 922(g)(3)—the
U.S. Supreme Court is set to privately discuss in September whether to
take up a pending case that centers on the statute.

According to the high court’s docket for the case, U.S. v. Cooper, the
matter has been distributed to justices for consideration in a private conference on September 29. An appeals court panel previously dismissed a three-year prison sentence against the defendant, who was convicted for possession of a firearm while being an active user of marijuana.

The development comes as at least two separate but similar cases wait in
the wings. One, U.S. v. Baxter, involves a defendant found in possession
of both a firearm and a bag of marijuana. The government charged him under 922(g)(3), which prohibits gun ownership by “unlawful” users of controlled substances.

Personally, I find the continued prosecution of marijuana users by federal authorities incredibly hypocritical.

The reason is that marijuana is still restricted under federal law, which
is the grounds for the ban, but federal authorities do nothing about dispensaries all across the nation that sell it in broad daylight. DEA
agents will roll right past a dispensary and do nothing at all. It's technically illegal, but the federal government allows the law to be
skirted.

Which is fine, honestly. I don't care.

What bothers me is that they'll ignore this violation of the law, then jam
up people who are using the exact same substance, who haven't hurt anyone, simply because they own a gun while also being a user of a drug the feds
do nothing about otherwise.

Either marijuana makes people dangerous or it doesn't. If it makes people
too dangerous to be allowed to have guns, then why look away while it's
being sold?

I suspect these and many others are questions the Supreme Court justices
will be grappling with as they discuss the situation in conference. I
honestly don't see how, under the circumstances, the justices can find the prohibition constitutional, though I said the same thing about Rahimi. To
say I can be wrong is to put it mildly.

Still, this is a chance to at least set the record straight and put an end
to this silliness.

Of course, changing the laws on marijuana one way or the other would end
it, too.

https://bearingarms.com/tomknighton/2025/07/27/scotus-pot-users-should-be- prohibited-from-owning-guns-n1229391

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)