Federal appeals court rules that drug users can not be barred from owning guns.

[Judi]

Good, now get rid of the 36 and 68 GCA .....

 

[Tinytim]

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

 

[OK Corgi Rancher]

Federal appeals court rules that drug users can not be barred from owning guns.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/drug-user-cannot-be-barred-owning-guns-us-court-rules-2023-08-10/ 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...

www.okshooters.com

 

[Old Noob]

Good news.

 

[bigfug]

o 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 enf

Thats my point, nothing establishes any maximum allowable amount of THC or any maximum level of any drug that causes impairment. Its all officer discretion. Take a muscle relaxer, you're impaired, same as if you took a bottle of em. Any amount above 0% of pretty much anything could be construed as impairment. Doesn't matter how stoned you are, if you took a 10mcg gummy, or a 100mcg brownie, it's all the same in the eyes of the "law". And yes, there is a minimum BAC that applies to control of a motor vehicle, and while it may be ok to drive with a level of 0.02, an officer having a bad day might say that's too much to be carrying. The law is ambiguous, and could be construed to be like a minor in regards to alcohol. Anything above 0 is not legal. When the law does not establish a maximum, the minimum becomes the rule of thumb.

 

[CHenry]

Thats my point, nothing establishes any maximum allowable amount of THC or any maximum level of any drug that causes impairment. Its all officer discretion. Take a muscle relaxer, you're impaired, same as if you took a bottle of em. Any amount above 0% of pretty much anything could be construed as impairment. Doesn't matter how stoned you are, if you took a 10mcg gummy, or a 100mcg brownie, it's all the same in the eyes of the "law". And yes, there is a minimum BAC that applies to control of a motor vehicle, and while it may be ok to drive with a level of 0.02, an officer having a bad day might say that's too much to be carrying. The law is ambiguous, and could be construed to be like a minor in regards to alcohol. Anything above 0 is not legal. When the law does not establish a maximum, the minimum becomes the rule of thumb.

Not exactly, I've proven it.

 

[SPOONBILL]

Can we expect new 4473s then?

 

[AKguy1985]

Can we expect new 4473s then?

As far as I'm aware, it only applies in the fifth circuit. I could be wrong though.

 

[Adhdferret]

"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.

This is the part that is important. When that guy was arrested they did so simply on the fact he had roaches in the car.

They never administered a test to ascertain his intoxication level, bet they will going foward and do so with some civil asset forfeiture money.

 

[tiasman]

"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.

This is the part that is important. When that guy was arrested they did so simply on the fact he had roaches in the car.

They never administered a test to ascertain his intoxication level, bet they will going foward and do so with some civil asset forfeiture money.

Correct. Too early for the druggies to rejoice over the click bait (aren’t they all nowadays?) title of the story.

“But Muh medical card!”