In a landmark case, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that marijuana users are not “dangerous” per se. And as such, the federal blanket prohibition on pot users is unconstitutional.
Now, if they’re intoxicated with the substance, they might be banned. HOWEVER, if they are “presently sober” they cannot be disarmed under the Second Amendment. According to the Fifth Circuit, the current blanket ban against gun ownership by weed users is “inconsistent with our history and tradition of firearms regulations.”
Again, the court ruled, “our history and tradition may support some limits on a presently intoxicated person’s right to carry a weapon…but they do not support disarming a sober person based solely on past substance usage.”
Bruen wins again.
Here’s a link to the case . . .
Paola Connelly is a non-violent, marijuana smoking gunowner. El Paso police came to her house in response to a “shots fired” call. When they arrived, they saw John, Paola’s husband, standing at their neighbor’s door firing a shotgun. After arresting him, they spoke with Paola, who indicated that she would at times smoke marijuana as a sleep aid and for anxiety. A sweep revealed that the Connellys’ home contained drug paraphernalia and several firearms, including firearms owned by Paola. There was no indication that Paola was intoxicated at the time.
For the “TL;DR” crowd: Here’s the conclusion . . .
Marijuana user or not, Paola is a member of our political community and thus has a presumptive right to bear arms. By infringing on that right, 922(g)(3) contradicts the Second Amendment’s plain text.
Again, with more emphasis.
Just as there is no historical justification for disarming citizens of sound mind, there is no historical justification for disarming a sober citizen not presently under an impairing influence.
And despite the Biden/HARRIS Department of Justice arguing that that marijuana users are inherently “dangerous.”
Nor, contrary to what the government contends, do restrictions on the mentally ill or more generalized traditions of disarming “dangerous” persons apply to nonviolent, occasional drug users when of sound mind.
Ultimately, the Court looks at it a lot like alcohol.
As applied to Paola, § 922(g)(3) restricts her rights more than would any of the historical and traditional laws highlighted by the government. While older laws’ bans on “carry” may be analogous to § 922(g)(3)’s ban on “possess[ion],” there is a substantial difference between an actively intoxicated person and an “unlawful user” under § 922(g)(3). …
Paola stated that she would at times partake as a sleep aid or to help with anxiety, but we do not know how much she used at those times or when she last used, and there is no evidence that she was intoxicated at the time she was arrested. Indeed, under the government’s reasoning, Congress could (if it wanted to) ban gun possession by anyone who has multiple alcoholic drinks a week from possessing guns based on the intoxicated carry laws.
Ouch. True. Don’t give the Illinois General Assembly any ideas. And yes, that would turn 2/3rds of the General Assembly into prohibited persons overnight… members of both parties in Springfield.
Unfortunately this judgement is binding only in the Fifth Circuit.
And that isn’t Illinois.
The Republican Party is more anti-pot than they are pro-2A and the Bill of Rights suffers. Party of “freedom” strikes again!
Prove it, Tranny-Travis! As usual, your blather over-rides common sense.
His posts are pretty mindless (assuming it is a he), and I usually skip over them.
His posts are mindless if you don’t have a mind.
Such as yourself, eh Moron-MaryJane.