It's a little odd that the Supreme Court is considering a case involving gun ownership for marijuana users before an assault weapon ban case. Still, such is life in 21st-century America, where things are weird as a matter of course.
In truth, though, it's a subject that should have been addressed years ago. The conflict between the federal government tacitly allowing marijuana use via statewide legalization, while still enforcing a prohibition on gun ownership for marijuana users, has never made a lick of sense to me. If they're so dangerous, why are you just letting people do it without using the existing federal laws to crack down on the sale of such a dangerous drug?
The Hemani case, though, isn't a great vehicle for the Supreme Court to decide the issue, which is why the Second Amendment Foundation just filed an amicus brief in another case dealing with Section 922(g)(3) and arguing that SCOTUS should take up that case too.
From a press release:
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court urging the court to grant certiorari in Harris v. United States, a case challenging the federal ban on firearm possession by individuals who use marijuana.
SAF is joined in the amicus filing by the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Second Amendment Law Center, Operation Blazing Sword–Pink Pistols, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus and Minnesota Gun Owners Law Center.
“The Third Circuit’s ruling defies Bruen and Rahimi by upholding a lifetime disarmament of sober citizens who occasionally use a substance – marijuana – that is now legal to various extents in 40 states and socially accepted by a supermajority of Americans,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. “History shows that Founding-era laws addressed the danger of mixing alcohol and firearms by temporarily disarming the actively intoxicated, never by stripping gun rights from anyone who simply drank in moderation. The Third Circuit ignored this close historical analogue and instead relied on remote comparisons to laws disarming the ‘furiously mad.’ We urge the Court to intervene and restore the proper Bruen framework.”
While the Supreme Court has recently granted cert in another marijuana-related case, U.S. v. Hemani, that case involves harder drugs than marijuana and other unusual facts, and the brief urges the Court to hear this case alongside it.
“This case is critical because it affects millions of law-abiding Americans who face losing their Second Amendment rights simply for using a substance legal in their state – often for medical reasons,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “SAF is also challenging a firearms purchase ban by medical marijuana card holders in Greene v. Bondi, and we feel it’s an important issue that warrants the Supreme Court’s intervention.”
And let's understand that while some of us might not be enamored with marijuana as a substance, it is legal in many states, either for medical or recreational use. If that's the case, then why is the government still forcing a prohibition on them? It's one thing if it's illegal where someone lives, which was kind of the purpose of the prohibition in the first place.
But that's not the norm anymore, and marijuana is far more acceptable today than it was just 20 years ago. The feds turn a blind eye toward how it's legal in many states. That's tacit approval, as they do absolutely nothing to stop it despite being able to find dispensaries in the yellow pages these days (metaphorically, at least, since I haven't seen Yellow Pages in years).
People who are following their state's laws, particularly for medical reasons, should not be prohibited from owning a gun.
How many people might be helped through these drugs, but won't even pursue them because of the possibility of losing their gun rights? Should people have to choose between treatment for chronic conditions and their rights? No. That should never be the case.
What happened to "my body, my choice," anyway?
Of course, that never went as far as some might have implied, but the point remains.
Here's hoping the Supreme Court makes the right call here.
Editor’s Note: The Schumer Shutdown is here. Rather than put the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the radical Democrats forced a government shutdown for healthcare for illegals. They own this.
Help us continue to report the truth about the Schumer Shutdown. Use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member