I think people need to force the government, federal on down, to defecate or get off the pot with respect to marijuana.
Either it's legal or it's not. Either it's a viable medical drug or it's not. The Form 4473 doesn't prohibit legitimate users of medically prescribed narcotics such as codeine or morphine, so why should marijuana be any different if it's also a viable medical drug?
Even in states that have "legalized" it, they haven't, really. They've simply set themselves up as the only legal distributors while also enacting other laws that can be used to prosecute others who don't buy from their distributors.
Kentucky doesn't need to do this because it's already against federal law to purchase if one is a user of marijuana for any reason (Form 4473, question 11(e)).
THAT SAID...I'm not sure about a person who happens to already be firearms owner and THEN uses marijuana. Especially if they're not under the influence when using a firearm. I just haven't looked that up recently. I'll leave that to you.
This very subject is being challenged in the courts and will likely eventually make it to the Supreme Court some day. In August 2024, for example, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the prosecution had violated Paola Connelly's right to keep and bear arms under the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment citing a landmark 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that expanded gun rights.
Engelhardt said that while the government may be allowed to bar someone currently under the influence of drugs from having weapons, "there is no historical justification for disarming a sober citizen not presently under an impairing influence."
I don't know where Kentucky is trying to go with this. I haven't looked into the background on it. It SOUNDS like something a minority gun control clique is trying to push through some form of state gun control that may give them leverage on existing gun owners.
Kentucky isn't part of the 5th Circuit, so this decision doesn't directly affect them. However, that doesn't mean that this decision cannot be used to help sway the 6th Circuit, should a similar case work its way up there.