- 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
SCOTUS (9-0): You can now own firearms and weed without reprecussions...
Posted on 6/18/26 at 10:11 am
Posted on 6/18/26 at 10:11 am
19
Posted on 6/18/26 at 10:12 am to finchmeister08
Great. We need to just keep stripping away these criminal laws infringing on the 2A
That first line is probably going to make some heads explode
That first line is probably going to make some heads explode
Posted on 6/18/26 at 10:14 am to finchmeister08
So I can now protect my weed field with an AR or two?
Awesome duuuuude
Awesome duuuuude
Posted on 6/18/26 at 10:15 am to finchmeister08
I mean, it would be ridiculous to say "anyone who drinks any alcohol ever should not be allowed to own a firearm", right?
Posted on 6/18/26 at 10:16 am to finchmeister08
"The government, he wrote, "asks us to conclude that anyone who regularly uses marijuana is categorically violent and dangerous without any further showing.*
Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion that really opened the door for so many who are deprived unconstitutionally, especially the non-violent felon. This is an outstanding decision for all who wish to own guns and are not "violent".
It is good to see these laws that infringe upon an inalienable right to protect yourself, feed yourself, and enjoy yourself are being overturned. Next, we need to see officers and judges sued for violating the civil rights of people and judgements rendered due to their immunity being removed.
Too many jurisdictions do not care about what is and is not Constitutional. That must end now!!
Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion that really opened the door for so many who are deprived unconstitutionally, especially the non-violent felon. This is an outstanding decision for all who wish to own guns and are not "violent".
It is good to see these laws that infringe upon an inalienable right to protect yourself, feed yourself, and enjoy yourself are being overturned. Next, we need to see officers and judges sued for violating the civil rights of people and judgements rendered due to their immunity being removed.
Too many jurisdictions do not care about what is and is not Constitutional. That must end now!!
This post was edited on 6/18/26 at 10:33 am
Posted on 6/18/26 at 10:18 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That first line is probably going to make some heads explode
Then tell them it was the same law used to prosecute Hunter Biden that his dad pardoned him for
Posted on 6/18/26 at 10:18 am to UtahCajun
quote:
So I can now protect my weed field with an AR or two?
I think the case was about recreational drug users, not growers/manufacturers. It was a pretty easy call evident by the 9-0 decision.
Posted on 6/18/26 at 10:20 am to Smeg
quote:
I mean, it would be ridiculous to say "anyone who drinks any alcohol ever should not be allowed to own a firearm", right?
How about a crack addict, because the same law the SC just overturned was used against Hunter Biden for being a crackhead while possessing a firearm.
The law needs to be adjusted to be based on the schedule of narcotics
Posted on 6/18/26 at 10:20 am to PeleofAnalytics
quote:
I think the case was about recreational drug users, not growers/manufacturers. It was a pretty easy call evident by the 9-0 decision.
My guy, trust me when I say, my field is strickly for recreational purposes.
Posted on 6/18/26 at 10:21 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
We need to just keep stripping away these criminal laws infringing on the 2A
Do you think there should be any restrictions on the 2A?
This isn't a gotcha or anything. I am working out what my take is and right now I think there shouldn't be any restrictions.
Posted on 6/18/26 at 10:22 am to UtahCajun
quote:That’s quality stuff.
So I can now protect my weed field with an AR or two?
Posted on 6/18/26 at 10:23 am to stout
quote:
Then tell them it was the same law used to prosecute Hunter Biden that his dad pardoned him for
I thought that was technically because he lied on a federal background check.
In you follow the rational for this decision, he shouldn't have had to lie on a federal form but he did lie which is a big no no when it comes to purchasing a firearm. What you should do is answer correctly and then fight being denied the purchase. That wasn't what Hunter did.
Posted on 6/18/26 at 10:24 am to 4cubbies
quote:
Do you think there should be any restrictions on the 2A?
This isn't a gotcha or anything. I am working out what my take is and right now I think there shouldn't be any restrictions.
quote:
4cubbies
Posted on 6/18/26 at 10:24 am to PeleofAnalytics
quote:
It was a pretty easy call evident by the 9-0 decision.
Not much uniting the court these days.
Glad to see weed can bring us together.
Posted on 6/18/26 at 10:24 am to 4cubbies
quote:
I am working out what my take is and right now I think there shouldn't be any restrictions.
Previous felons, depending on the severity of the felony, is the clearest and only one I think most people would agree on.
That being said, Dems and some RINOs want red flag laws to be able to stop people for something as simple as being on prescribed SSRIs
This post was edited on 6/18/26 at 10:25 am
Posted on 6/18/26 at 10:26 am to UtahCajun
quote:
My guy, trust me when I say, my field is strickly for recreational purposes.
Guarded by trigger happy Thai islanders?
Posted on 6/18/26 at 10:27 am to 4cubbies
quote:Bare arms as in shaving them, bare arms as in having guns, bear arms as in cutting them off after legally killing them. No restrictions for me for any of them.
shouldn't be any restrictions
Posted on 6/18/26 at 10:27 am to SlowFlowPro
You know the line that makes the most heads explode is always this one
quote:
SlowFlowPro
Posted on 6/18/26 at 10:27 am to stout
quote:
Previous felons, depending on the severity of the felony, is the clearest and only one I think most people would agree on.
Maybe as kneejerk reaction to the question.
Can you articulate why a (or certain) felony convictions should be a restriction on the 2A and the likely impact it would have?
Posted on 6/18/26 at 10:28 am to PeleofAnalytics
quote:
he shouldn't have had to lie on a federal form
It was three charges for Hunter. Lying on the federal form was one of the 3 but the law the SC struck down today was one of the laws used to charge him
The 3rd charge was lying to a federally licensed gun dealer
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News