Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
This sounds like an attempt to prevent black people from owning guns, in the same way a marijuana conviction has kept them from owning dispensaries.
I know white people smoke pot, but they don’t usually try to make laws to keep white people down in the same way.
The case in front of SCOTUS is not about implementing a new restriction. It is about if a long standing restriction on the unrelated use of controlled substances is a Constitutional violation. Weed is grabbing the headline, but the restriction applies to a vast range of substances.
Thank you for the clarification. I read this when I was half asleep.
I'm inclined to entirely agree though the abject hypocrisy (I know, par for the course of conservatives) will be through the roof if the individuals who staked their entire personality on "we can't restrain gun ownership in any remote way because the plain-text of the constitution" find pot usage to be the only acceptable background check.
A wrinkle to this case is that Federally marijuana is in the most restricted category. It's above meth or cocaine.
Obviously a lot of people consider those drugs more harmful than marijuana, but if we are playing the legal game then marijuana is legislated as being more dangerous and that's what the court has to work with.
SCOTUS I think has to decide if controlled substance use as a whole can prohibit legally buying a gun or not. I'm not sure if they can just make a carveout for marijuana. (Also the person taking the case up had cocaine too, so it can't not be brought up.)
You'd be surprised how many 2A people, who are across the political spectrum, are fine with removing that category of prohibition entirely. However I wonder if it will make SCOTUS more hesitant to make such an "extreme" ruling.
You are exactly right in how this law has been used. However, this case is looking to overturn that and set a precidedent for allowing marijuana users to own guns.
TBF, I think the people smoking pot should be the ONLY ones allowed to have guns, much more laid back.
They can have it once it's empty.
Well said.
What if I irregularly smoke pot?
Like upside down? Or in a funny hat?
Only can own ARs then
Feels like alcohol should be higher in priority over weed when it comes to anger issues
This case is not about imposing new restrictions.
Logically, yes, but this court doesn't need logic where it is going...
recovering alcoholic here who has had guns, this comment is spot on. I smoke pot as well, never had an issue when high, but have been stupid with guns while drunk.
Watch as the GOP takes away gun rights from a sizable portion of their own pot smoking, 2A glazing base... and none will waiver their support.
Like clockwork, they get mad for all of 3 seconds, then they remember the GOP is leading the genocide against brown people and LGBTQ+ people, then they forget anything happened at all.
I wish people would read the articles. Weed is already Federally prohibited. The case is an attempt to overturn that.
It's already illegal. This is a challenge to restore those rights.
They're just trying to find other ways to take guns from leftists and trans people.
Also, since pot is federally illegal, and legal states don't normally give the feds buyer info, how the hell would they even know? A form asking if you smoke pot? What stops someone from just saying they don't?
A form asking if you smoke pot?
Yes, that's exactly what already happens. The form in question is ATF 4473 for purchasing a firearm, and it is a federal crime to lie on that form. As far as the ATF is concerned, it does not matter if weed has been legalized in your state or not, or if it's for medicinal purposes or recreational.
As of now, you cannot own a firearm if you are "an unlawful user of, or addicted to" pot or any other banned substance. This has rarely been enforced, and it's hard to bring enough evidence to actually prove it. Were they a user when they bought it? A user an hour later? A month later? How do you even prove that in court?
The few times it's been prosecuted, it's usually one thing in a pile of more serious charges.
If the Supremes rule against it, then it's just the status quo. Nobody can really prove it. There is some reason to think they'll strike this down.
How is this legal? Even as someone who knows much tighter gun control would save thousands of lives, if they haven’t been committed then it doesn’t matter.
If they have been committed, then it would be legal/fair, although I might disagree
It's legal because that's what the law says. Arguably unconstitutional, but that's what bringing it to the Supreme Court is supposed to be for. Nobody has really pushed this in front of the courts before.
Pot snokers may be on the fence about you coming for their guns, but gun owners are gonna get real mad about you coming for their weed
The case is about overturning existing prohibitions. Reading the article would clarify this.
snokers
IS THERE SOME WAY OF IMBIBING WEED THAT I AM NOT AWARE OF AND WHAT IS IT
Snoking is like smoking but with an enya.
Oh you ain't ready to snoke yet my son
One of the biggest potheads I know is a right wing trumpet with TONS of guns. The irony would be pretty sweet I gotta say.
I think you're a little mixed up. It is currently illegal for a regular pot smoker to own guns. The supreme court is looking at potentially getting rid of that restriction. So if they did, I think it would actually reenforce your friend's love of Trump.
Fuck, I clearly only read the headline and inferred that they’d be looking for an excuse to take guns seat in states where it’s legal (mostly but not all bluer states).
And to add more to this, the plaintiff is from Texas.
Scotus will likely overturn this
I very much doubt it was doing much to help anyway. The rich fuckers who can afford both guns and weed are gonna do it either way.
The way the law works currently it's just a mechanism to remove gun rights from people and to tack on extra bullshit charges to anyone who happens to get caught with a little weed and also owns guns. Sincerely hope they can actually change this law because it is almost entirely used for bullshit.
Isn't this almost never enforced? You'd have to be caught by federal law enforcement with both on you, which seems incredibly unlikely.
IIRC this is mainly used as a foot in the door to get people on more serious charges, like Al Capone w/ tax evasion.
Not defending it, as #1 the federal government doesn't have the power to criminalize or regulate marijuana in the first place, and #2 it's a gross violation of your rights.
Wonderful, set precedent that the 2nd amendment is totally subject to the whim of the president. Then let's flip all of government in 2028 and work on fixing this gun problem once and for all.
NO ONE IN THIS COMMENT SECTION READ PAST THE HEADLINE.
Everyone here is assuming they're trying to outlaw this. It is already outlawed. They're looking to overturn it.
Aren't the pot smokers more mellow and less likely to fight/shoot/kill someone. I think drinkers stand a better chance of violence. How about we leave both groups alone. Case closed ... next?