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.
the gop hardon for weed+jailtime, to feed into the forprofit system, in order to get kickbacks plus use the prison population as part of the census.
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.
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.
it is a federal crime to lie on that form
But are you really lying when you think or feel you’re answering truthfully?
I.e., what is regular? Once a month? Once a week? These seem more “occasional” than “regular”. And even at 3+ times per week, in “regular” territory, what if you stop?
Are you still a regular smoker if you’ve been clean for a month? Two months? Three or four? Six or a year?
Of course, this is all under the assumption they don’t just get ICE’d or Venezuela-boated.
I think the answer lies in the Hunter Biden charges. They can ask the question when purchasing a firearm and then charge with a crime later if they can show that the person lied.
Honestly wouldn’t be shocked if they started going after recreational marijuana either. Some big liberal states have legal marijuana.
. . . if they can show that the person lied.
That’s the hard part, and the reason why it doesn’t get enforced.
Yeah, I suppose my point is that it’s very difficult to prove in court (especially the “regularly” part), and something would likely have to happen alongside the charge for it to be investigated in the first place. In other words, it seems like mostly theater, although it would be another tool to further charge any leftists that smoke pot in the future.
My local weed store tracks user’s purchases. I think every store i know of in NJ does.
Well, sure, but that doesn’t automatically mean the ATF has access to that.
Mostly, yes. That said, a change would actually be less of a problem for leftists arming up.
In the past, the Supreme Court has ruled that penalising someone for failing to file or omitting information on a form which would incriminate them violates Amendment 5.
The case was regarding a tax imposed on gambling. People who ran gambling operations had to pay a tax of 10% of the amounts wagered and register with the IRS. At this time, gambling was illegal (almost) nationwide. The IRS then made those registration records available to gaming authorities, who would use them to prosecute anyone who registered.
The court ruled that forcing them to register and then providing this information to gaming authorities to prosecute people violated Amendment 5, and thus a person so convicted for failing to register could assert an Amendment 5 privilege against conviction.
Edit: Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39
Yep, it was this stupid bullshit that they got Hunter Biden on for his illegal owning of a firearm.
This is already the law, they are actually looking to overturn it. Despite having used it to prosecute Hunter Biden.
Yeah, makes sense from that perspective.
the question on the form is not temporally bound; it asks if you are currently using. i read it as “are you smoking while filling the form out?”
the answer is always “no.”
I have heard (not sure) that at least here in California, the rule applies to using pot in the past year, or maybe it was 5 years. I expect it is written down somewhere.
it’s a fed form no? iirc it doesn’t say a time range other than “current”?
It doesn’t even say that. It says:
Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana
or other stuff. It does not define “user”.
Idk maybe it’s documented some other place or the dealer is supposed to explain it. I’ve never dealt with the process myself.
Fraud charges.
I guess, but “regularly” is hard to prove in court, or at least it was before 2025. Also before 2025, something would have to happen for you to be investigated for that in the first place. I’m sure now they’ll just make up a reason to investigate pot smokers.
I do wonder how it would go over in court now. In a jury trial, the prosecution would likely still have to prove that you “regularly” smoke pot, right?
I suppose my point is that it probably won’t be very effective in stopping pot smokers from owning guns (especially those that already own guns) if it’s just a yes/no on a form.
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.
Well that’s not the case though. It’s up to interpretation by the Supreme Court. This is nothing new
i’m all for better gun laws, and I speak as someone who owns multiple and yet still does not trust the 2nd amendment anyway. I think we should be reminding folks that “amendments” don’t mean shit, and we need legit common sense laws.
and a separation of concerns when it comes to what a gov can and cannot do. eg: laws won’t stop ppl from owning guns, but mental health/healthcare WILL stop people from causing harm.
gotta be careful with the wording, because “common sense” has such a broad meaning that it can be used by fascist to distort reality.
true!! i mean logical. my bad.
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?
they should be the worry about the cocaine and meth users.
I think the issue should be pretty cut and dry. You can drink as often as you want and own guns. You can’t go out shooting while you’re drinking. You should be able to smoke whenever you want as long as you’re not inebriated when you’re shooting.
You can’t go out shooting while you’re drinking. You should be able to smoke whenever you want as long as you’re not inebriated when you’re shooting.
Fully agree, and have alienated myself from former friends over this.
You can drink all day and night. but don’t you dare touch a firearm while drinking. I don’t care if you’re just a little buzzed, man
As far as I’m concerned, smoke weed every day. But don’t you dare touch a firearm while high. I don’t care if you’re just a little toasty, man
Drugs and guns don’t mix. Alcohol is a drug. Don’t drink and shoot.
Well, drugs that impair you, anyway. Caffeine, for example, is fine, unless you’ve had so much that you get jittery.
What does this have to do with legally owning a gun. This isn’t about shooting inebriated. This is about cherry picking one group and castigating them. I have no idea where you go the idea that anyone said it was okay to get high and shoot. That’s a total straw man.
This ridiculous nonsense should and will get the NRA up in arms.
Chill dude, you’re calling out “straw man” like I’m disagreeing with you. I’m saying that the rules should work the same way. There’s no reason people that smoke should be banned from gun ownership, just like people who drink aren’t banned.
I simply replied to your post that didn’t address the topic of pigeonholing pot smokers to segue about people who smoke pot shouldn’t shoot like drinkers can’t shoot. Yes we all agree anyone fucked up shouldn’t be shooting and I really haven’t heard anyone suggesting they should? Especially here so yeah that’s a logical fallacy even if good intentioned.
Wow, you’re a little insufferable
You can’t go out shooting while you’re drinking.
Try telling that to the old farts at the trap range.
I knew one club shooting president who really, really wanted to ban drinking while using any of the ranges. The culture of having a beer while shooting was too entrenched, and the loss of membership numbers from the old guys leaving would have put the club out of business. So it was only banned on the pistol/rifle ranges. Had to leave trap and skeet as they were.
lol. so many rural gun owners smoke pot. the stereotype is a urban youth but it is so common in rural areas.
Notice how they don’t go after those who regularly do Ketamine or the Cokeheads sauntering the halls of the WH at any given hour.
pure cocaine is often done by upper middle class and rich people, coke is for the poors. ketamine for people like musk.
“SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, LIBTARDS!”
*Terms and conditions apply.Tap for spoiler
Not applicable to blacks, liberals, queers, leftists, women, convicts, or users of the marijuanas. Sincerely, American Taliban, Guardians of Pedophiles.
I’m gonna take a shot in the dark here and guess that they’ll completely forget about the historical precedent test that they just randomly pulled out of their ass, but only when it comes to drugs, queer people, and leftists.
ATF form 4473 question 11(e) asks:
Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? [my bold]
Are you. Right at the moment you are checking the box, are you an unlawful user …?
Caffeine and nicotine are stimulants.
Are you … addicted to … any … stimulant … ?
Now do alcohol and you have a gun free country :D
They’re looking to overturn the law preventing gun ownership for drug users.
I’m kinda shocked how many people in this thread just made the assumption the court was trying to do the bad thing without even reading the article
In 2019 I asked my doctor if I should have my vaccinations boosted because I was traveling for work. He asked if I was traveling to third world countries. I said I was. He asked which ones and I replied, “The US.”
He boosted all of my vaccinations and added a couple of others.
i asked about meningicoccal , they would refuse if they dont think your in a risk population group. i was about varicella once, but i already shingles a long time ago, and that indicates a chickenpox infection, (the vaccination dint prevent or lessen the effect shingles) as i already had the viremic version of varicella.
I swear I read this exact comment about the UK after brexit…
Good call.
I had them all as a kid but with the way things were going in the US I was afraid of bringing measles home. My wife has had the MMR four times and it doesn’t take. She had it as a kid then she was tested before each kid and they gave it to her again because she didn’t have antibodies.
Never happened
Here’s a Facebook post from 2021 after getting the AstraZeneca Covid vaccine talking about getting all those vaccinations two years before, in 2019.
Fuck you.
Just so we’re all on the same page, the current status quo is that you cannot buy a firearm if you use pot. This ruling would potentially change that. No, it does not matter if your state has legalized it, or if it’s strictly for medicinal use. The ATF doesn’t care.
It’s rarely enforced, but it’s there.
No one else here bothered to get on this page.
This story is even stranger when you consider this:
Trump named a legal drug/pot dealing dispensary owner in Dearborn to be a special envoy to Iraq.
He has enough money to play in this grand pay to play scheme.
