There are typically a handful of cases where I honestly can’t comprehend why we can’t just agree on a couple of gun laws, namely, to repeal them. The prohibition against people who use marijuana in accordance with state law is a prime example.
Alright, maybe it’s not, because some people don’t think it should be legal on any level, thus the prohibition makes sense in their minds.
Others are very pro-legalization and who don’t want to see the prohibition repealed so much as the legalization to take place where it no longer applies.
For most people, they might be somewhere in between on legalization, but then we’ve got the gun issue itself. Federal law says one thing and state laws say another, but the feds’ actions tell another story entirely.
They know where the marijuana dispensaries are. They know who owns them and what they’re doing on a daily basis. They’ve taken no action on that level, which is at least tacit approval, but they’ll still lower the boom on anyone using marijuana in accordance with state law if they own a gun.
It’s both too dangerous to allow users to own guns, but so safe it can be sold in the building next to your neighborhood Starbucks.
As many of you know, this confusing thing is being challenged, and the Second Amendment Foundation, along with the California Rifle and Pistol Association, 2A Law Center, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and MN Gun Owners Caucus just filed an amicus brief on the topic.
From a press release:
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of the respondent in United States v. Hemani, a case challenging the federal lifetime ban on firearm possession for marijuana users.
SAF is joined in the amicus filing by the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Second Amendment Law Center, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus.
“The government’s position defies Bruen and Rahimi by seeking to impose a permanent disarmament on law-abiding citizens who use marijuana, even when sober, without any distinctly similar historical tradition to justify such a draconian restriction,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. “History shows that Founding-era laws addressed the dangers of intoxication and firearms through temporary restrictions on those actively impaired, never by stripping gun rights from sober individuals who occasionally use socially accepted substances like alcohol — or, by analogy, marijuana today. We urge the Court to affirm the Fifth Circuit and reject this unconstitutional overreach.”
The ban on firearm possession by marijuana users affects millions of law-abiding Americans who face losing their Second Amendment rights simply for using a substance that is state-legal and widely accepted, often for medical reasons. Marijuana is currently legal to various extent in 40 states.
“This case highlights the federal government’s unconstitutional infringement on the right to keep and bear arms for those legally using marijuana, ignoring clear historical limits,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “SAF is committed to defending these rights against outdated prohibitions, and we believe this warrants the Supreme Court’s affirmation.”
It’s definitely one thing to prohibit the use of a firearm while under the influence. There are laws on the books here and now about that with alcohol, though some of those measures go way too far–they prohibit the use of a gun even in self-defense inside your home if you’ve been drinking, regardless of the reality of the threat against you–so applying that to marijuana would be consistent with the historical tradition of gun laws outlined in Bruen.
The issue is and has always been that the laws go well beyond that.
I’m not even a fan of limiting the prohibition to having used in the past handful of years or months, personally, especially because of that bizarre schizophrenia regarding whether marijuana is safe or not at the federal level, but at least anything better than essentially a lifetime ban for having used the same drug they sell for recreational use in California with the blessing of the state.
There’s stupid, then there’s gun-control stupid.
Editor’s Note: Pro-2A groups across the country are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.
Help us continue to report on their efforts and legislative successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Read the full article here
