The question of whether marijuana users should retain their Second Amendment rights has been raging for quite some time. Now, the battle is legal in nature, and we have yet to see quite how that will shake out in the long term.
Still, the debate will rage on indefinitely, and at least some of it will be in various publications’ op-ed sections.
I’m talking about pieces like this, that make the case that gun rights shouldn’t go up in smoke due to marijuana use.
The Supreme Court recently announced that it will soon reconsider whether people who regularly smoke marijuana can own guns.
Currently, under the Federal Gun Control Act, it is completely illegal in every state for a marijuana user to purchase, possess or receive firearms or ammunition. Even in New Jersey, where recreational marijuana use is legal, anyone seeking a gun permit must affirm in their application that they are not a regular user of marijuana, medical or recreational.
The matter is an interesting intersection of two partisan issues — gun rights and marijuana use — where no stance is easily taken by either side. For Republicans, the question is whether a concession to pot smokers is worth an expansion of the Second Amendment; for Democrats, the inverse.
Partisanship aside, though, the debate truly boils down to one age-old question: is there a causal link between marijuana use and violent crime?
The short answer is that no, there’s no causal link between pot use and violent crime. Dealing might be a different matter, but not with use.
However, that’s the wrong question, in my mind. Well, sort of.
See, the problem with the marijuana question stems not so much from whether people who use it are violent, but if they’re so dangerous that they must be prohibited from owning guns, why does the federal government allow states to permit its sale?
The issue with marijuana is that it’s illegal at the federal level, which both the feds and various states are more than willing to ignore right up until someone they don’t like has a firearm. At that point, suddenly, they’re dangerous people who must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
There are mixed signals, and the federal government has never adequately resolved his dichotomy.
Plus, the federal government has had years to address this. They could have simply legalized it, something that would likely get bipartisan support, contrary to what the author seems to believe, and then it’s all over. There’s no more discussion to be had. Even if its legality is regulated to some degree or another, it’s no longer an illegal substance that disqualifies people from owning a gun.
Rather than do that, though, three different administrations have decided to just look away as federal law is violated in one way, but not when it’s violated in a slightly different manner, such as also exercising your Second Amendment rights.
I honestly don’t care all that much what they do anymore, but they most definitely should have done something a long time ago.
And it’s the question that seems too few are asking. They don’t seem to get why the feds can’t get their acts together and address marijuana use in a consistent manner.
Editor’s Note: After more than 40 days of screwing Americans, a few Dems have finally caved. The Schumer Shutdown was never about principle—just inflicting pain for political points.
Help us report the truth about the Schumer Shutdown. Use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership.
Read the full article here
