Awesome, now do the Lautenberg Amendment.
Federal appeals court rules that drug users can not be barred from owning guns.
- Thread starter dieseltech09
- Start Date
Depends on the state and the statute. A licensed MJ dealer in OK could always be armed. A USER could not. There are distinctions. For example, the grower being charged with murder right now is only being charged for shooting the guy who broke in because he had let his license expire. Had his license been current, he would have been able to defend his business under the law as business owners are allowed to protect their occupied business. However, since it was an unlicensed grow, he was engaged in illegal activity and thus not protected. This changes nothing for dealers, distributors, etc.
I know several who have quit opioids or drinking once they got their card and they are much happier, mentally stable, and much better off since getting their card. They are responsible users, and you would never know. When I was younger, my dad smoked. He was a great dad. When I got older he drank. Was an ******* when he was living as a functional alcoholic. Unfortunately, at the age of 51 he passed, but I suspect he would have been different, and probably still here had he been able to get his card.
This new **** is to help Hunter owning a gun while on drugs.
Drug user cannot be barred from owning guns, US court rules
A federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled that a decades-old law prohibiting users of illegal drugs from owning firearms was unconstitutional as applied to the case of a marijuana user, the latest fallout from a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year that expanded gun rights.www.reuters.com
Aug 9 (Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled that a decades-old law prohibiting users of illegal drugs from owning firearms was unconstitutional as applied to the case of a marijuana user, the latest fallout from a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year that expanded gun rights.
A three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the federal law violated a Mississippi man's right to "keep and bear arms" under the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment.
The man, Patrick Daniels, had been convicted under that law after law enforcement found a pistol and a semi-automatic rifle in his vehicle during a traffic stop along with marijuana cigarette butts.
The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration did not administer a drug test, though Daniels admitted he sometimes smoked marijuana, which federal law prohibits. He was sentenced to nearly four years in prison.
While his case was pending, the conservative-majority Supreme Court in June 2022 declared for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense.
That decision, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, also announced a new test for assessing firearms laws, saying restrictions must be "consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."
U.S. Circuit Judge Jerry Smith, an appointee of former Republican President Ronald Reagan, said that decision meant the statute was invalid as applied to Daniels.
"In short, our history and tradition may support some limits on an intoxicated person’s right to carry a weapon, but it does not justify disarming a sober citizen based exclusively on his past drug usage," he wrote.
U.S. Circuit Judge Stephen Higginson, an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama, in a concurring opinion agreed while noting that many other gun safety laws had likewise been struck down since the Supreme Court's ruling.
He urged the court to provide more guidance in a case it agreed to hear in its next term, saying last year's ruling could otherwise result in the "dismantling of the laws that have served to protect our country for generations."
Hunter Biden Approved 
In light of the fact that there is NO TEST available yet to determine the level of being 'stoned' and no laws that define what 'being stoned' means, to deny someone the right to carry a firearm because they are 'stoned' violates the current court ruling and is against the very nature of the 2nd Amendment
Last edited:
In light of the fact that there is NO TEST available yet to determine the level of being 'stoned' and no laws that define what 'being stoned' means, to deny someone the right to carry a firearm because they are 'stoned' violates the current court ruling and is against the very nature of the 2nd Amendment
Not necessary to prove how stoned they are. The law reads under the influence or impaired by ANY drug or alcohol. No minimum BAC required, and there is no way to determine the impairment of any other drug either. A couple of years ago, a student riding a motorcycle at a high rate of speed hit a woman who pulled out of her driveway and died. She was arrested for DUI (of prescription medication) and manslaughter in the first degree at 70 years old. Any amount of alcohol or drug is in violation of the law.
TITLE 21 § 1289.9 CARRYING WEAPONS UNDER INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL It shall be unlawful for any person to carry or use shotguns, rifles or pistols in any circumstances while under the influence of beer, intoxicating liquors or any hallucinogenic, or any unlawful or unprescribed drug, and it shall be unlawful for any person to carry or use shotguns, rifles or pistols when under the influence of any drug prescribed by a licensed physician if the after effects of such consumption affect mental, emotional or physical processes to a degree that would result in abnormal behavior. Any person convicted of a violation of the provisions of this section shall be punished as provided in Section 1289.15 of this title.
If they own a dispensary, yes. I've been in a few and they were always wearing a sidearm.
- Every state has as law, a maximum amount of alcohol 'allowable' for activities like driving or firearm carrying/use. This level is measured as the Blood Alcohol Content (currently 0.08).
- No state law currently exists that establishes the maximum amount of THC 'allowable' for activities like driving or firearm carrying/use, nor is there even an acceptable method of measuring THC levels outside the laboratory, thus leaving the determination about the level of impairment for driving or firearm carrying/use while using Marijuana completely up to the discretion of the individual law enforcement officer.
- The law excerpt cited above is, at best, ambiguous in that it fails to adequately define "abnormal behavior" as the result of being under the influence, which again the determination being purely up to the discretion of law enforcement at the time you were questioned.
- Toke a doobie the size of a broom handle OR simply have the smell of Marijuana on your clothing from someone else using, and if are carrying, you could find yourself convicted and facing fines and jail time, all at the discretion of a law enforcement officer whom may or may not be having a good day.
Alcohol is worse than weed but decades of TV/Nascar/magazine/billboard advertising and the lobbyists paid by Diageo, Sazerac and Brown-Forman (Jack Daniels, et al) don't want you to figure this out.
Similar threads
