The text of the Supreme Court decision -

http://www.supremecourt.gov/op...pdf/24-1234_g2bh.pdf

It’s a narrow decision, but 9-0 holding that simply occasionally or even regularly smoking weed should not be a reason to disarm someone, and I think that while narrow, this is a huge ruling. They did right on this one. Even the liberal justices concurred.

Good. About damn time. Now get that damn question off the stupid form we have to fill out at the gun store, or AT LEAST update the verbiage.

It will be interesting to see if the decision impacts the ATF and the question on the 4473, I'm not sure that it will change anything regarding them asking if you use drugs on that form since that's not what the case was about.

Hemani wasn't arrested for lying on a form, but for admitting to use of MJ and owning a firearm and having his rights removed for life.


From the folks at 2AF


Dear Gun Rights Advocate -

The Supreme Court handed us a big win this morning. SAF filed an important amicus brief in United States v. Hemani and has its own case litigating this very same issue. Let me tell you what happened.

This case is about who is at risk of the government taking away their rights. At issue was a portion of the 1968 Gun Control Act, which establishes that all unlawful users of drugs, as well as those addicted to them, can have their fundamental rights taken away from them for life.

Ali Hemani was charged with a federal crime because he admitted that he smoked marijuana a couple of times a week, while in possession of a firearm in the home. That's all it took, despite no finding that Mr. Hemani had done anything or had ever been a danger to anyone. Our position, and that of Mr. Hemani, is that such an overly broad lifetime ban, for using a drug that's already legal in some capacity in 40 states, violated his constitutional rights. Today, the court unanimously agreed, and its opinion repeatedly echoed the logic of our amicus brief.

Make no mistake, this is a big deal. Today, the Supreme Court told the government “no.” There's no history in this country of disarming every unlawful user of substances that have widespread social acceptance. The government must go further and show that a particular user is an addict or otherwise dangerous.

Link SAF

Related: Justice Jackson runs mouth again with flawed reasoning

Dos anyone else think that leftist lawmakers being heavily involved in the commercial marijuana marketplace might have anything to do with this ruling?

Not sure the pot industry cares one way or the other, they would be more focused on getting it cleared off the Fed Schedule, taxed and moved on to the ATF like Alcohol.

Still don't understand why Trump just didn't push for removing it, maybe he was limited on how far he could go as long as it's in a law it's up to lawmakers and courts (legalizing it).

Could be the ATFMJ if it's legalized

The headlines are all spun to hell.

Basically, all "Super Trumpy Right-Wing SCOTUS Strikes Down a Law Barring 'Dangerous Individuals' from Owning Firearms".



Dangerous individuals? They were talking about pot smokers, you hypocritical FUCKS.

quote:

Originally posted by Belwolf:
Related: Justice Jackson runs mouth again with flawed reasoning

Imagine that! Jumanji Jackson uses flawed reasoning.
Whodathunkit!
She claims the “historical precedence” is too unworkable. The only thing unworkable is the synapses between her ears.

Some input from our own James Reeves.

quote:

Originally posted by flesheatingvirus:
The headlines are all spun to hell.

Basically, all "Super Trumpy Right-Wing SCOTUS Strikes Down a Law Barring 'Dangerous Individuals' from Owning Firearms".



Dangerous individuals? They were talking about pot smokers, you hypocritical FUCKS.

The grabbers and TGOs are all big mad about it for sure.