The people who enforce our laws don't need to be docile creatures. To some degree, being dangerous can and should be part of at least some of their job description. It's really just a matter of who they are dangerous to.

The guys kicking down doors and cracking the skulls of people involved in human trafficking? I want dangerous people there.

But the term "dangerous" came up in a case recently that has me scratching my head a bit. It seems a prosecutor in Pennsylvania is using marijuana in accordance with state law. Despite that, he's apparently too dangerous to have a gun.

In a new court filing by the U.S. Department of Justice, attorneys for the federal government argue that the nationwide ban on marijuana consumers owning firearms is constitutional and should remain in place, arguing it aligns with other restrictions on gun ownership by dangerous, mentally ill or intoxicated people.

The brief, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, is the latest in a case filed earlier this year by Warren County District Attorney Robert Greene, a registered medical marijuana patient in the state. Greene teamed up with the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) to file suit in January against the government, including U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland and the heads of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) and the FBI.

The original suit says that while Greene “intends to lawfully purchase, possess, and utilize firearms and ammunition so that he may exercise his constitutional right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and all other lawful purposes,” he’s forbidden from doing so because of his status as a state-certified medical cannabis patient.

In DOJ’s latest filing, the government says that’s by design. Its motion asks the court to dismiss Greene’s case.

“Marijuana’s physical and mental effects make it dangerous for a person to handle firearms,” it says, “and also impair a person’s judgment, including judgement about whether to use firearms.”

Of course, it should be noted that alcohol has those same effects on people, but there's no laws regarding my having both a gun and a bourbon collection.

Now, the DOJ isn't saying Greene is doing anything illegal, necessarily, by consuming marijuana. He is under federal law, but the DOJ has long turned a blind eye to that when states have legalized it. So why are they cracking down on the portion of federal law about guns?

Marijuana users aren't typically more violent than non-users. I've often commented that the only thing in danger from a pot user is the snack aisle at the corner store. Yes, they might have impaired judgment, but this is cherry-picking.

For example, if I'm on a medication to help me sleep, I'm taking something that impairs my judgment. If I drive, I'm guilty of DUI. Yet if that medication is prescribed, my gun rights are unaffected. I can still have them and use them. If I use them improperly while under the influence, I'm punished.

But because of marijuana's unique status as illegal at the federal level while legal at the state level, people like Greene exist.

Yet my question is, how can he still be trusted to prosecute criminals while being too dangerous to protect himself and his family from some of those criminals?

This crap needs to end.