News Supreme Court to consider whether people who regularly smoke pot can legally own guns

[GoldensRule]

Supreme Court to consider whether people who regularly smoke pot can legally own guns

Supreme Court to consider whether people who regularly smoke pot can legally own guns

The Supreme Court will consider whether people who regularly smoke marijuana can legally own guns, the latest firearm case to come before the court since its 2022 decision expanding gun rights

abcnews.go.com

WASHINGTON -- WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said on Monday that it will consider whether people who regularly smoke marijuana can legally own guns, the latest firearm case to come before the court since its 2022 decision expanding gun rights.

President Donald Trump’s administration asked the justices to revive a case against a Texas man charged with a felony because he allegedly had a gun in his home and acknowledged being a regular pot user. The Justice Department appealed after a lower court largely struck down a law that bars people who use any illegal drugs from having guns.

Arguments probably will take place early in 2026, with a decision likely by early summer.

The Republican administration favors Second Amendment rights, but government attorneys argued that this ban is a justifiable restriction.

They asked the court to reinstate a case against Ali Danial Hemani. His lawyers got the felony charge tossed out after the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the blanket ban is unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s expanded view of gun rights. The appellate judges found it could still be used against people accused of being high and armed at the same time, though.

Hemani's attorneys argue the broadly written law puts millions of people at risk of technical violations since at least 20% of Americans have tried pot, according to government health data. About half of states legalized recreational marijuana, but it's still illegal under federal law. .......

Supreme Court to consider whether people who regularly smoke pot can legally own guns

The Supreme Court will consider whether people who regularly smoke marijuana can legally own guns, the latest firearm case to come before the court since its 2022 decision expanding gun rights

abcnews.go.com

 

[Jimi Jah]

Any guesses on how this comes out? Trump signaled about changing pot from class 1.

The standard republican position would be to keep it as is. The SC has been tough to predict.
I have no idea what they will rule.

 

[Hamburger Monster]

There is precedent or history of disarming people currently under the influence. But nothing that makes a permanent or life long ban especially when sober

This is what I believe the Supreme Court will say

 

[GoldensRule]

Any guesses on how this comes out? Trump signaled about changing pot from class 1.

The standard republican position would be to keep it as is. The SC has been tough to predict.
I have no idea what they will rule.

Since it is the federal government asking for this restriction to be upheld, I suspect this SCOTUS will go along with that desire and continue the restriction.

I wonder just how many people perjure themselves on BATF form 4473 when they respond to the question: "Unlawful User of or Addicted to a Controlled Substance: Drug use is a disqualifying factor." When it comes to pot, I wager the percentage is pretty high.... no pun intended.

 

[raellic]

This is a Republican administration and a Republican-appointed majority on the Supreme Court. 99.9% chance SCOTUS upholds the restrictions on marijuana. Keep in mind there is a whole country outside California where marijuana use is not normalized. There are plenty of folks who want to believe marijuana use "doesn't count" or whatever their excuse is on the 4473. Don't shoot the messenger, but that is not the law. The Republican majority in the House is never going to change that law while they are in power. Watch the midterms in 2026 and see whether the balance of power changes, and you'll have your answer for probably the next decade. It's just not fashionable or politically viable to want to give firearms to users of illegal drugs. The only hope for users of marijuana is the drug being removed from the DEA schedule, which is also extremely unlikely under President Trump. Safe to say that unless the Supreme Court somehow takes the contrary view, it's another decade at a minimum before a user of marijuana can legally buy a firearm. I waited more than two decades for my CCW permit, so I honestly don't feel the least bit sorry for folks who lie on the 4473 or who have to wait longer for Congress to change the law.

4473: "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized
for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside."

 

[Ro-bo]

It's great how SCOTUS has settled all the lingering controversies like clarification of Heller "dangerous and unusual", everything (literally) in Bruen, and made it clear to the lower courts that magazine/AW bans, so-called "sensitive places", etc. etc. etc. are all violations of the 2A so they have time now to answer the pressing questions about pot smokers in the context of gun ownership.

What a great time to be alive.

 

[Toshiro Mifune]

It's great how SCOTUS has settled all the lingering controversies like clarification of Heller "dangerous and unusual", everything (literally) in Bruen, and made it clear to the lower courts that magazine/AW bans, so-called "sensitive places", etc. etc. etc. are all violations of the 2A so they have time now to answer the pressing questions about pot smokers in the context of gun ownership.

What a great time to be alive.

RIGHT!!!

 

[Deleted member 16735]

It's great how SCOTUS has settled all the lingering controversies like clarification of Heller "dangerous and unusual", everything (literally) in Bruen, and made it clear to the lower courts that magazine/AW bans, so-called "sensitive places", etc. etc. etc. are all violations of the 2A so they have time now to answer the pressing questions about pot smokers in the context of gun ownership.

What a great time to be alive.

I honestly think that no political party wants the public to be armed but one party is still playing out the Southern Strategy to get votes but has no actual intention of doing anything meaningful

 

[hearbetter]

This is a Republican administration and a Republican-appointed majority on the Supreme Court. 99.9% chance SCOTUS upholds the restrictions on marijuana. Keep in mind there is a whole country outside California where marijuana use is not normalized. There are plenty of folks who want to believe marijuana use "doesn't count" or whatever their excuse is on the 4473. Don't shoot the messenger, but that is not the law. The Republican majority in the House is never going to change that law while they are in power. Watch the midterms in 2026 and see whether the balance of power changes, and you'll have your answer for probably the next decade. It's just not fashionable or politically viable to want to give firearms to users of illegal drugs. The only hope for users of marijuana is the drug being removed from the DEA schedule, which is also extremely unlikely under President Trump. Safe to say that unless the Supreme Court somehow takes the contrary view, it's another decade at a minimum before a user of marijuana can legally buy a firearm. I waited more than two decades for my CCW permit, so I honestly don't feel the least bit sorry for folks who lie on the 4473 or who have to wait longer for Congress to change the law.

4473: "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized
for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside."

Would the key be addicted. Define addictedusing pot a couple times a month would that be addicted?

 

[raellic]

> Would the key be addicted. Define addictedusing pot a couple times a month would that be addicted?

Unlawful user OR addicted. Yes, using marijuana a couple of times a month is unlawful. Sorry for the bad news.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

> Would the key be addicted. Define addictedusing pot a couple times a month would that be addicted?

Unlawful user OR addicted. Yes, using marijuana a couple of times a month is unlawful. Sorry for the bad news.

There's also the saying that nothing is illegal that isn't enforced. Except for Hunter Biden I've never heard of it ever being a thing. I don't believe marijuana is under the list of enforceable drugs for the state of California so it would have to be a federal indictment

 

[raellic]

There's also the saying that nothing is illegal that isn't enforced. Except for Hunter Biden I've never heard of it ever being a thing. I don't believe marijuana is under the list of enforceable drugs for the state of California so it would have to be a federal indictment

Everyone hears what they want to hear and hopes for someone to tell them it's okay. It isn't. I'm not going to keep repeating this basic fact that is unquestionably true: marijuana is illegal under Federal law. It even says directly on the 4473 that using marijuana under state law does not make it legal under Federal law. Thus, if you use marijuana and check the box that you don't use it, you're lying on the form. Don't shoot the messenger, this is just the law.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

Everyone hears what they want to hear and hopes for someone to tell them it's okay. It isn't. I'm not going to keep repeating this basic fact that is unquestionably true: marijuana is illegal under Federal law. It even says directly on the 4473 that using marijuana under state law does not make it legal under Federal law. Thus, if you use marijuana and check the box that you don't use it, you're lying on the form. Don't shoot the messenger, this is just the law.

I don't like marijuana personally so I don't care for myself, but I have to say, who cares? It's a stupid law and I certainly don't judge anyone who lies on the form. There's no reason for it to be illegal and like I said, it would probably have to be enforced federally and if you have a federal charge, lying on the form is likely the least of your worries. SCOTUS ruling on it will likely change nothing and it will still just not matter because it's not enforced. Just because something is illegal doesn't make it "not ok".

 

[SigMike]

Much rather have someone smoke some weed and have a gun than someone drunk off their ass on legal vodka.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

Much rather have someone smoke some weed and have a gun than someone drunk off their ass on legal vodka.

man it's not even close. Alcohol is the catalyst for so many bad decisions especially violent ones. Marijuana might actually make you think about it too much and not even touch the gun.

 

[FekTok]

Supreme Court doesn't take up cases pertaining to magazine bans and assault weapons that affect CA and growing number of states, which directly involve a huge number of law abiding citizens, yet somehow find the time to make a ruling for pot smokers and felons. They definitely have their priorities straight.

 

[treelogger]

Much rather have someone smoke some weed and have a gun than someone drunk off their ass on legal vodka.

Would Kentucky Bourbon be OK with you?

(Don't bother answering, it is a satirical question.)

 

[MattB]

Of all the cases they could have taken, they take this one. Why?

 

[Jimi Jah]

It's all about the money. Billions spent on weed, the government wants their piece.