Nope smokers not allowed

When pot became legal here. Everyone was saying that you couldn't hold both a concealed carry and medical marijauna permit. Everyone said it was a state thing but I'm pretty sure it is federal.
 
I would argue that having a firearm AND a plastic card that says I MAY possess cannabis is not cannabis itself, and therefore could not be in violation of any law. Now, a bonafide sack of doja while you carry? That’s “a crime”.

I won’t inject my opinion on the matter…
 
I thought maybe there was a decision, but not yet it seems. The most recent arguments sound like they could have been entertaining.

“On Monday, Principal Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris tried to pass the Court’s historical test by arguing that a few 18th-century state laws restricting drunkards from using guns empower the federal government to prevent marijuana users like Hemani from owning a gun. In order to figure out whether a prohibition on drug users possessing guns passed in 1968 is still legal in 2026, the Court spent oral argument pondering how drunk the Founding Fathers got in 1776.”
 
I am the lone outcast on this. How about stop smoking dope. Carry guns..............

If your town, America or just you a buddy are bad situation or under attack, would you rather have a guy carrying a gun or a guy who's is high? Just saying
 
People against pot and guns often forget about the alcohol question on the 4473 as well.

In reality, many people who are alcoholics or fit the legal definition of an alcoholic would be prohibited from owning or possessing guns, regardless if they are drunk at the moment.
 
Rack Daniels said:
Sounds pretty judgey….. just sayin…
We do know that Reefer madness was fictional right?

I’d take a guy with a joint/gun to protect me over a guy with a beer/gun— 1000 times. Bet there’s thousands of infantrymen in America that would agree…
Click to expand...
The concern over legalized Marijuana cracks me up. mtmuley
 
“Could the government prohibit an unlawful drug user from possessing a car?”
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh

In oral arguments - Kavanaugh suggested that while the government has a clear interest in preventing unlawful drug users from driving cars, that restriction does not automatically translate to a legal justification for prohibiting them from possessing firearms under the Second Amendment. Im inclined to agree.

Be interesting to see how this falls - cheering on hunter biden getting his gun rights back ☺️
 
Forkyfinder said:
“Could the government prohibit an unlawful drug user from possessing a car?”
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh

In oral arguments - Kavanaugh suggested that while the government has a clear interest in preventing unlawful drug users from driving cars, that restriction does not automatically translate to a legal justification for prohibiting them from possessing firearms under the Second Amendment. Im inclined to agree.

Be interesting to see how this falls - cheering on hunter biden getting his gun rights back ☺️
Click to expand...
Did he ever get his white house toot back...
 
SAJ-99 said:
I thought maybe there was a decision, but not yet it seems. The most recent arguments sound like they could have been entertaining.

“On Monday, Principal Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris tried to pass the Court’s historical test by arguing that a few 18th-century state laws restricting drunkards from using guns empower the federal government to prevent marijuana users like Hemani from owning a gun. In order to figure out whether a prohibition on drug users possessing guns passed in 1968 is still legal in 2026, the Court spent oral argument pondering how drunk the Founding Fathers got in 1776.”
Click to expand...
Which is a legitimate argument against SCOTUS' "originalism." There are new issues in law that Founders didn't and couldn't anticipate, e.g. AI.
 
mevertsen said:
People against pot and guns often forget about the alcohol question on the 4473 as well.

In reality, many people who are alcoholics or fit the legal definition of an alcoholic would be prohibited from owning or possessing guns, regardless if they are drunk at the moment.
Click to expand...
There are two uses of the word "alcohol" on the current 4473. Both are in the agency name," Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives". None are in specific questions.

If you are talking about a broad definition of Question 21f, then we could lump tobacco in there too. It is a depressant and people are certainly addicted to it.

I'm watching Hemani with interest. WA Gun Law YouTube originally said the case had a snowball's chance in hell. He has changed his mind based on early arguments.
There are a lot of BS 2A law channels on YouTube. His seems the most balanced to me. Since I carry in Washington State I keep abreast of their law as much as I can.

elkduds said:
Which is a legitimate argument against SCOTUS' "originalism." There are new issues in law that Founders didn't and couldn't anticipate, e.g. AI.
Click to expand...
I think the court can and should consider the nuances of new tech against the foundation of original intent. Intent being different than strict adherence to the original verbiage.
 
Am I the only one who thinks it is depressing that SCOTUS wants to settle an answer to this before settling the public land corner crossing…?
#FindingNegatives
 
Rack Daniels said:
Sounds pretty judgey….. just sayin…
We do know that Reefer madness was fictional right?

I’d take a guy with a joint/gun to protect me over a guy with a beer/gun— 1000 times. Bet there’s thousands of infantrymen in America that would agree…
Click to expand...
Id prefer the 3rd option which is the guy who is under the influence of neither. The responsible guy.
 
44hunter45 said:
There are two uses of the word "alcohol" on the current 4473. Both are in the agency name," Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives". None are in specific questions.

If you are talking about a broad definition of Question 21f, then we could lump tobacco in there too. It is a depressant and people are certainly addicted to it.

I'm watching Hemani with interest. WA Gun Law YouTube originally said the case had a snowball's chance in hell. He has changed his mind based on early arguments.
There are a lot of BS 2A law channels on YouTube. His seems the most balanced to me. Since I carry in Washington State I keep abreast of their law as much as I can.


I think the court can and should consider the nuances of new tech against the foundation of original intent. Intent being different than strict adherence to the original verbiage.
Click to expand...
21f is exactly the question, in its current form, that I mentioned. (Though I did mess up the specific wording)

If a person is addicted to.... any type of drug, (yes alcohol and nicotine are drugs, and addicting) could they be a prohibited possessor?

Many people who smoke like a chimney and can't quit, or drink 3 plus drinks a day who own firearms.

I guess my whole point is.

The war on drugs is lost.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
118,628
Messages
2,200,580
Members
38,597
Latest member
swmetal

Share this page

Back
Top