- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Federal Judge Rules Banning Guns for Marijuana Users is Unconstitutional
Posted on 2/6/23 at 1:37 pm
Posted on 2/6/23 at 1:37 pm
LINK /
A federal judge in Oklahoma, however, has ruled that prohibiting individuals from gun ownership because of marijuana use is unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge Patrick Wyrick, a Trump appointee, ruled that being a user of the plant does not justify the disarming of citizens: “…the mere use of marijuana carries none of the characteristics that the Nation’s history and tradition of firearm regulation supports.”
A federal judge in Oklahoma, however, has ruled that prohibiting individuals from gun ownership because of marijuana use is unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge Patrick Wyrick, a Trump appointee, ruled that being a user of the plant does not justify the disarming of citizens: “…the mere use of marijuana carries none of the characteristics that the Nation’s history and tradition of firearm regulation supports.”
14
Posted on 2/6/23 at 1:41 pm to Beardlington
quote:Was the legislature concerned that someone would get the munchies and try to EAT a gun?
Banning Guns for Marijuana Users
Of course, iF SCOTUS would just ditch the moronic Incorporation Doctrine, each State could make the call for itself.
This post was edited on 2/6/23 at 1:52 pm
Posted on 2/6/23 at 1:44 pm to Beardlington
Good. This ruling better hold up on appeals.
Posted on 2/6/23 at 1:46 pm to Beardlington
...
This post was edited on 2/6/23 at 1:52 pm
Posted on 2/6/23 at 1:47 pm to Beardlington
Rationale works for all drugs. The Founders didn’t know about meth so how could they have contemplated a prohibition of guns and meth?
Also works on felon in possession laws too. I see no such prohibition in the plain text of the document.
Also works on felon in possession laws too. I see no such prohibition in the plain text of the document.
This post was edited on 2/6/23 at 1:48 pm
Posted on 2/6/23 at 1:48 pm to Beardlington
quote:
ruled that being a user of the plant does not justify the disarming of citizens: “
This is what was once known as common sense.
Posted on 2/6/23 at 1:48 pm to Beardlington
Completely insane that this would even have anyone support it.
Posted on 2/6/23 at 1:48 pm to Beardlington
I posted this yesterday.
Every gun law is an unconstitutional infringement.
Every gun law is an unconstitutional infringement.
Posted on 2/6/23 at 1:50 pm to Beardlington
Good ruling. Shouldn't have even been up for debate tbh.
Posted on 2/6/23 at 1:52 pm to Beardlington
Not sure how I feel on this one. Pot is still a prohibited substance at the federal level.
Posted on 2/6/23 at 1:52 pm to Beardlington
We should ban marijuana for gun owners though.
Posted on 2/6/23 at 1:54 pm to Smokeyone
quote:
Not sure how I feel on this one
I can't imagine feeling any other way but pleased, because its common sense.
Posted on 2/6/23 at 1:58 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Rationale works for all drugs. The Founders didn’t know about meth so how could they have contemplated a prohibition of guns and meth?
Also works on felon in possession laws too. I see no such prohibition in the plain text of the document.
Really glad to see you support textualism, plain ordinary meaning, and originalist ideology here in regards to gun laws.
Individual Libertarianism is the foundation of this country, where life, liberty, and property cannot be restricted without due process.
Now, let us look at the plain ordinary language of the Constitution and see where in the aforementioned document is the language that allows, third parties, absent of firsthand personal knowledge, to make decisions regarding healthcare, and of course never have to deal with the consequences of being wrong.
Just a question I have for you when we are using the rules of interpretation...do we only use them when we want? Or do we switch to purposivism when the results don't fit our personally held bias?
Asking for a friend
"The right of personal security consists in a person's legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his health, and his reputation." William Blackstone
Posted on 2/6/23 at 1:58 pm to Smokeyone
quote:
Not sure how I feel on this one. Pot is still a prohibited substance at the federal level.
so what other enumerated rights do they lose, the right to vote, the right to assemble, the right to exercise their religion, the right to freedom of speech?
Posted on 2/6/23 at 2:05 pm to Beardlington
Meanwhile in pretty much every state if you have a MISDEMEANOR Domestic Assault conviction, you can't own a firearm.
And worse... if you are the subject of an Order of Protection (which can be granted on mere threats) you are prohibited from owning firearms, even while the case is in an Ex parte, or unresolved, status.
The state tries to take your firearms and your driver's license for EVERYTHING they can get away with.
And worse... if you are the subject of an Order of Protection (which can be granted on mere threats) you are prohibited from owning firearms, even while the case is in an Ex parte, or unresolved, status.
The state tries to take your firearms and your driver's license for EVERYTHING they can get away with.
Posted on 2/6/23 at 2:12 pm to Beardlington
quote:
so what other enumerated rights do they lose, the right to vote, the right to assemble, the right to exercise their religion, the right to freedom of speech?
If caught and convicted on federal or state charges, yes, they lose their civil rights. That’s the way it works.
The easiest fix would be to remove pot from the federal controlled substance list.
Posted on 2/6/23 at 2:14 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
I can't imagine feeling any other way but pleased, because its common sense.
Then you are rejoicing over being thrown a scrap.
Posted on 2/6/23 at 2:18 pm to Beardlington
This could be the start of something good…
Posted on 2/6/23 at 2:20 pm to CountryVolFan
quote:
Meanwhile in pretty much every state if you have a MISDEMEANOR Domestic Assault conviction, you can't own a firearm. And worse... if you are the subject of an Order of Protection (which can be granted on mere threats) you are prohibited from owning firearms, even while the case is in an Ex parte, or unresolved, status.
Domestic violence is the result of a failure to exercise self control. How many domestic violence convictions are enough to warrant some restrictions?
Personally on the 2nd violence against children conviction I’m in favor of the death penalty.
Pretty much any second sex/children/drug/violence conviction death needs to be an option. And if they catch 2 or more at the same time it needs to be one conviction.
Posted on 2/6/23 at 2:20 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Rationale works for all drugs. The Founders didn’t know about meth so how could they have contemplated a prohibition of guns and meth?
Didn't need to, pass an amendment.
quote:
Also works on felon in possession laws too. I see no such prohibition in the plain text of the document.
That's like saying prison isn't constitutional because it violates freedom of assembly.
This post was edited on 2/6/23 at 2:21 pm
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News