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

[Pommer]

Supreme Court will 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.

apnews.com

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.

If SCOTUS could thread the eye of a needle, (judiciously), they could suggest that Congress could codify into law that people were free to either drink alcohol or own (or otherwise handle) a firearm…but not both, (except in special circumstances that would allow for both and would be very easy to obtain at any drinking establishment or gun shop/dealer.)

Most people wouldn’t avail themselves these “rights” and the “gun problem” would simply “age-out” over twenty or so years?

 

[High Fidelity]

I can't stand weed or people smoking it, but this is a silly avenue to pursue.

 

[Hazelelponi]

It noted that the previous ruling pertained to still allowing criminalization for actively for having a firearm while under the influence.

But ultimately, a person's casual use of alcohol or cannabis shouldn't be a disqualifier providing they're not actively carrying or operating a firearm while consuming it.

I agree I think everyone sees cannabis about the same as alcohol and we don't take peoples guns away for drinking scotch occasionally nor would anyone see doing so as legitimate.

But, they have to rule on the case with the laws as written so I guess we will find out how the ruling goes

I guess without federal legalization it's probably an issue. This whole states having laws that violate federal law is confusing at times.

 

[Larniavc]

Oh, I understand why they pursued charges for someone having drugs and guns at the same time...I was just pointing out that it's odd that they pursued the marijuana angle over the cocaine angle.

White guy drug vs black guy drug.

 

[Chesterton]

White guy drug vs black guy drug.

Yes, racisms is always the answers. But which drug is which? If I'm of mixed race can I do both drugs?

 

[BPPLEE]

White guy drug vs black guy drug.

The Feds won't even take a marijuana case,

 

[BCP1928]

What form in what state?

A federal form I have filled out in gun shops in California and Illinois at various times.

 

[BPPLEE]

A federal form I have filled out in gun shops in California and Illinois at various times.

It doesn't ask if you have ever used marijuana, it asks if you are a user. Someone who may have tried drugs in the past is not excluded from owning a firearm

 

[Niels]

Where pot is legal, it should be legal for pot smokers to own firearms. Were pot is illegal, on the other hand, firearm ownership should be illegal for pot smokers. The idea being owning a firearm is a privilege, and people who brazenly break the law should be disqualified.

Which isn't to say this would necessarily make much of a difference. If they're willing to break the law to support a pot habit, and they want a gun badly enough, they'll just get the gun illegally. Such a law seems unlikely to keep guns out of the wrong people's hands.

For what it's worth, I'm concerned about pot use and alcohol use as they pertain to firearm ownership. Guns and mind altering substances aren't a good match. Regardless of the legalities.

 

[Chesterton]

The idea being owning a firearm is a privilege, and people who brazenly break the law should be disqualified.

A privilege enshrined in the second amendment to the Bill of Privileges?

Guns and mind altering substances aren't a good match.

You're no fun. Here's how we do it 'round here:

 

[eleos1954]

Supreme Court will 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.

apnews.com

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.

What about people who regularly drink alcohol or regularly take drugs? (street drugs and/or prescription drugs) Our current gun laws are sufficient.

The article is in regard to the conceal carry laws that exist in some states

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The constitution is pretty clear on the matter.

 

[Niels]

A privilege enshrined in the second amendment to the Bill of Privileges?

You're no fun. Here's how we do it 'round here:

View attachment 371893

I said if pot smoking is legal then it should be legal for pot smokers to own firearms. Alcohol is legal, so it should likewise be legal for drinkers to own guns.

If you break the law, then you forfeit owning firearms legally. That's my point. The right to bear arms doesn't apply to people in jail, for instance. Regardless of the 2nd amendment.

Regarding shooting while drunk or shooting while high, I think they're both bad ideas. If that means I'm "no fun" so be it. I support responsible firearm ownership. That photo of a store doesn't tell me anything about whether its patrons are responsible with their guns.

 

[durangodawood]

.....If you break the law, then you forfeit owning firearms legally. That's my point. The right to bear arms doesn't apply to people in jail, for instance. Regardless of the 2nd amendment......

"Shall not be infringed".

I do understand the need to infringe upon the right in various circumstances. But we have to disregard the constitution to an extent.

 

[Niels]

"Shall not be infringed".

I do understand the need to infringe upon the right in various circumstances. But we have to disregard the constitution to an extent.

I support the constitution. It's just that if we're considering making it harder for pot smokers to own firearms then it seems inconsistent to not to treat alcohol users similarly. When people break the law, they lose some of their rights and privileges. Depending on the nature and severity of the crime, that determines which rights and privileges they may no longer have.

 

[durangodawood]

I support the constitution. It's just that if we're considering making it harder for pot smokers to own firearms then it seems inconsistent to not to treat alcohol users similarly. When people break the law, they lose some of their rights and privileges. Depending on the nature and severity of the crime, that determines which rights and privileges they may no longer have.

I mostly support the constitution.

But I do appreciate that the way its written does not allow for certain necessities, like infringing upon the free speech right for various circumstances like national security, commercial fraud, death threats etc. Similar with the 2A.

 

[Chesterton]

"Shall not be infringed".

I do understand the need to infringe upon the right in various circumstances. But we have to disregard the constitution to an extent.

Personally I don't think every convicted felon deserves to have the right to own taken away, only the violent who use weapons. If a guy is convicted for something like stealing a car, then pays his debt to society, I think he ought to retain the right to defend himself and/or his family.

 

[DaisyDay]

Did the gun permit not ask that question?

View attachment 371854

In Ohio, that question #4... it's on both the CCW form and the gun purchase form.

I always thought it was odd that they mention marijuana by name, but then every other (much more dangerous) drug is only referenced in categorical terms.

Question 4 says "unlawful user" which means that if marijuana is lawful in your state, and you use it, you are not an unlawful user, I would think.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Question 4 says "unlawful user" which means that if marijuana is lawful in your state, and you use it, you are not an unlawful user, I would think.

Updated versions of the form note that marijuana is still federally illegal.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Personally I don't think every convicted felon deserves to have the right to own taken away, only the violent who use weapons. If a guy is convicted for something like stealing a car, then pays his debt to society, I think he ought to retain the right to defend himself and/or his family.

The background checks do have some, what I would call, "logical blind spots"

As you noted, felons get that right removed.

However, in my view, a person who's committed a misdemeanor assault presents a bigger "concern" for societal safety than a person who, say, cooked the books for an accounting firm, but doesn't have a violent bone in their body.


The mental health portion of the federal background check is rather lacking as well.

The only disqualifier is if a judge has adjudicated someone as mentally defective, or involuntarily committed them to a mental health institution.

There's a wide chasm between
"Mentally stable enough to own/carry a firearm" and "so mentally unstable that they have to commit you"

The majority of severe bipolar and schizophrenics don't get involuntarily committed. Yet, I don't think anyone would suggest that it's a good idea for a person hearing voices in their head to be packing heat.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The background checks do have some, what I would call, "logical blind spots"

They are literally just going through the restrictions in 18 USC 922(g):

(g)It shall be unlawful for any person—
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) who is a fugitive from justice;
(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien—
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8) who is subject to a court order that—
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(C)
(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,

to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

Full text of section 922:

18 U.S. Code § 922 - Unlawful acts

www.law.cornell.edu

The part at the beginning and end that I bolded are the framing "it is illegal for anyone who X to Y".

The limitations of the background check forms is that it is just asking if you would be in violation of 18 USC 922(g) if you had or purchased a firearm.

As you noted, felons get that right removed.

However, in my view, a person who's committed a misdemeanor assault presents a bigger "concern" for societal safety than a person who, say, cooked the books for an accounting firm, but doesn't have a violent bone in their body.


The mental health portion of the federal background check is rather lacking as well.

The only disqualifier is if a judge has adjudicated someone as mentally defective, or involuntarily committed them to a mental health institution.

There's a wide chasm between
"Mentally stable enough to own/carry a firearm" and "so mentally unstable that they have to commit you"

The majority of severe bipolar and schizophrenics don't get involuntarily committed. Yet, I don't think anyone would suggest that it's a good idea for a person hearing voices in their head to be packing heat.