An OK judge rules that the law banning marijuana users from possesing guns is unconstitutional

Status
Not open for further replies.
If smoking pot can prevent you from owning a gun then drinking alcohol should be too. I grew up hearing about how bad pot was for you. Never cared for it myself, but the more I see I've come to believe it is no worse than alcohol.
 
CCW is illegal under influence of alcohol (diffrent BAC levels in diffrent states).Marijuana stays in your system much longer so how is one to tell under the influence.Just the same as driving a car under influence of marijuana,there is no test to confirm up to the minute.
It amazes me how states ignore the federal government on marijuana legality,but limit gun ownership,mag limits etc that are federally legal.
 
jmr40 said:
If smoking pot can prevent you from owning a gun then drinking alcohol should be too. I grew up hearing about how bad pot was for you. Never cared for it myself, but the more I see I've come to believe it is no worse than alcohol.
Click to expand...

Here is the answer...It won't be long and pot will be regulated and sold just like alcohol. To much money to be made and the gubment could use it. The effects of the 2 may be slightly different but the outcome is the same...
 
buck460XVR said:
If not now, it will at some point. With pot now legal in 37 states, I'm guessing there is more fraud from folks lying on their 4473s, than folks going crazy and shooting things up while high on the ganja.
Click to expand...

But there is not a single state in the U.S. where Marijuana possession and use is legal.

Thirty-seven states may have removed their state-law criminal sanctions against possession and use, but so long as the Federal Controlled Substances Act continues to apply, possession and use is still illegal in those 37 states.

There's two different sovereigns involved here and you're bound by the laws of both.
 
tommy.duncan said:
Alcohol is federally legal, not better, but legal.
Click to expand...

And you're just spotlighting your own inconsistent thinking on the matter.

Alcohol has demonstrably a far more negative effect on society, and on people's health, then marijuana does. Same with tobacco.

If we are going to be using "it's bad for you" as our criteria for banning things, then alcohol and tobacco both need to be two of our first targets.

Prohibition sure worked out great in the twenties didn't it? And it's still just as effective now. Anyone who can't see just how futile this stupid "war on drugs" of ours is has to be just willfully ignorant.

Seems to me like this judge is one of the few people in our entire criminal Justice system who has his head screwed on straight concerning this matter.
 
bdickens said:
Alcohol has destroyed WAY more lives than pot could ever hope to.
Click to expand...

The misuse of alcohol has caused much destruction - not sure why that makes alcohol a bad thing. Alcohol is great when used responsibly - like guns. Is marijuana the same way? It seems to be a harmless goldenboy in the media and popular consciousness but time will tell
 
I agree that if marijuana use should cause the loss of Constitutional rights, then so should alcohol use.

Conversely, @DeepSouth does make a good point regarding cocaine.

As a libertarian, I believe that we should be able to put whatever we like into our bodies. I also believe we should be able to own whatever sort of small arms we like. And while I don't think that would result in masses of crackheads going on shooting sprees - seriously, at this point just about anyone who wants a gun in this country can get one and probably already has - I do think it would almost certainly result in more crackheads, and more crackheads going on shooting sprees.

In practical terms, the question should then be whether that result is better or worse than the results of illegality, the "war on drugs", etc.
 
nugi said:
The misuse of alcohol has caused much destruction - not sure why that makes alcohol a bad thing. Alcohol is great when used responsibly - like guns. Is marijuana the same way? It seems to be a harmless goldenboy in the media and popular consciousness but time will tell
Click to expand...

Well maybe we should try looking at some of the actual science on this instead of just misinformation pushed by a people with an agenda.

The biggest problem I have with people who smoke pot is not the smoking of the pot, but the people they end up having to associate with in order to get ahold of the stuff.
 
Couple of issues here. This is not the home grown weed of the 70s. THC (that ingredient that makes you high) levels are off the charts. At least 5 times higher depending on the variety.

Secondly, respected MH experts are raising (and have been for a while) concerns on repeated/habitual use this level of THC might have on the adolescent/developing brain and specifically if it increases violent tendencies etc. There was a history of marijuana use in recent instances of young mass shooters that was discussed in a pod cast I listened to. The popular media blew right by that and gave it little to no air time and seemed to focus exclusively on gun control and common sense ( whatever those are) gun control laws.

I agree with an earlier poster. The federal government will eventually legalize it. Much like the states, they cannot resist this massive pool of easy cash and the pressure to tap it must be immense.

It’s much easier and probably more popular across certain strata of our populace to redirect/bury concerns of young mass shooters use of marijuana by focusing exclusively on gun control.

It will be interesting to see more of these studies come out about potential impact prolonged usage of high THC levels may have on developing brains. Specifically in regards to increased violence/paranoia/impulse control etc. by adolescent users.

More interesting will be the spin the media and government put on those studies should they reflect negatively on the MH of youth users and the impact of those exceptionally high THC levels.

I expect that media spin to be heavily focused on anti 2A rhetoric in mass shooting cases were the shooter used weed. That is to say even if the user smoked and ate weed 7 days a week it will be the gun that gets all the attention and blame.

PS: I need to add. Should reputable medical studies validate the negative impact I discussed above some time in the future expect the Marijuana industry to be on the side of the anti gun lobby ( if that isn’t happening already). And they have money to burn.
 
Last edited:
So if and when the feds legalize pot,then it should be treated same as alcohol with a test that is a standard and can be held up in court. There is no test and I have a CDL and been tested my whole life. It's either you have thc in you or you don't. I do believe you should not be under the influence of either while CCW carrying.But with weed it's yes or no and not a level of intoxication.So very stoned or barely buzzed same result.So how does an officer determine how high you are,?Too many variables for my liking.
 
I give it 50/50.

Here's the thing. People have this vision where everyone will be able to use pot and function in normal society, and it won't be a thing anymore. That's not going to happen. As pot becomes more 'legal' in society, businesses which have a strong interest in protecting their reputations and shielding themselves from liability are going to lean into enforcing HR policies banning pot. Meaning, instead of just testing upon hire, they will have more random testing to enforce policies. It will feel more like the military. "I would have a doobie this weekend, but I don't dare, because I might have to pee in a cup Monday morning."

Imagine that there is say, a construction company that has a tractor roll off of a construction project and causes an accident. They try to shield themselves from liability, and a former employee makes an accusation that everyone he knows who works there smokes pot. So they test everyone, and the driver pops hot. Now they are looking at liability. Then rival companies start to advertise; "We are clean and reliable. All of our employees are background-tested and drug-checked. Not like those other dirtbag companies that kill people." It becomes a purity contest. The workforce will separate into what I am going to call "Green-Collar" jobs. If you want to smoke pot, you will have to work in sales, call-centers, service sector jobs like restaurant servers. If you work in any industry where businesses face liability for people being high, you can plan on enforced no tolerance policies.

I can see incidents where someone is involved in a defensive shooting, and there is an abundance of evidence they were a pot user. Since it is difficult to discern whether they were actually high at the time, but they CAN determine if they have THC in their system, that becomes the default standard for liability. You use pot, and someone got killed. You are liable. Alcohol is easier to state whether someone was under the influence at the time of the incident.

Not saying it's right or fair. I do not pretend to be the great and powerful arbiter of these things. But I don't believe for one second that we are just going to legalize pot and that will be the end of these questions.
 
That is all beside the point. What's under discussion here is the use of marijuana in the context of gun rights.

As in: there's no real reason, other than the fact that is illegal for no real reason, that having smoked a joint last weekend should make you a prohibited person anymore then having had a 12 pack last weekend should.
 
^^^ Well, that is the conundrum a lot of states are facing.

My state is a constitutional carry state. We also have legalized (Fed statutes not withstanding) medical marijuana.

So, let’s say a person uses their medical marijuana to get some sleep from an inflamed hip.

Now they can’t carry their firearm or use them because they’re by default a restricted person for however long THC is measurable. That period of time can be up to 30 days depending on what test is used. There is no minimum level. It’s all or none.

This is something that is going to need to be addressed sooner than later given how many states are in this situation and the numbers of citizens involved.
 
DeepSouth said:
Deleted: no point.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I typed up responses to most of the arguments here and then deleted them. No point. I'm disheartened by the comments here. Are we really willing to let a bunch of drug addicts have easy/legal access to guns in some strange attempt to ensure that we have access to guns? Is this what we have become? Do people really think stoners are going to come out and vote for pro-2A candidates now that they're allowed to have guns?

Side note. This was an FPC case. I stopped supporting them when they were advocating for a bill that would accomplish the same thing this court decision attempts to accomplish.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
The Eleventh Circuit has upheld Florida's under-21 gun ban, saying that it "leaves 18-to-20-year-old
Replies
13
Views
871
patmccoy
P
A
A Texas federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction against the ATF's "frame or receiver" rule
Replies
0
Views
324
Aim1
A
A
Seventh Circuit rules against plaintiff who had an unregistered drop-in auto sear since 1979 and wan
Replies
7
Views
851
Will Munny
Will Munny
A
"Canada’s Liberal government repealed on Friday elements of its gun-control legislation that propose
Replies
4
Views
433
Reeferman
Reeferman
A
  • Locked
Discover Card Will Start Tracking Customer's Gun Purchases Beginning in April
Replies
5
Views
469
hso
hso
Back
Top