- 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
re: SCOTUS (9-0): You can now own firearms and weed without reprecussions...
Posted on 6/18/26 at 10:29 am to finchmeister08
Posted on 6/18/26 at 10:29 am to finchmeister08
I'm not a weed user but anytime we can remove restrictions on 2nd Amendment is a good thing - that it was 9-0 is extra gravy
This post was edited on 6/18/26 at 10:36 am
0
Posted on 6/18/26 at 10:29 am to 4cubbies
quote:
Do you think there should be any restrictions on the 2A?
Just between me and the good people on this board, yes there should. I do like background checks. I do like the hoops one needs to jump through to purchase anything but small arms. And I do not want a private individual owning ICBMs.
But when talking to someone who wants to limit the 2A, frick that shite. I want zero restrictions!
Posted on 6/18/26 at 10:30 am to 4cubbies
quote:
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.
So do you think a person who has had several beers at a local bar should be "restricted" from driving while intoxicated??
I think there are nuances that play into how this is applied...
Posted on 6/18/26 at 10:31 am to finchmeister08
Weed & Guns!
Posted on 6/18/26 at 10:31 am to finchmeister08
Is this just weed or does it remove the drug user question from form 4473 altogether
Posted on 6/18/26 at 10:32 am to finchmeister08
I wonder if our three liberal justices would have gone along with the other six if Hunter Biden wasn't caught up in this law? Somehow, I don't think they would have.
Posted on 6/18/26 at 10:32 am to finchmeister08
I’d be challenging the law that says I can carry in a bar but can’t drink while doing so.
Posted on 6/18/26 at 10:34 am to klrstix
quote:
So do you think a person who has had several beers at a local bar should be "restricted" from driving while intoxicated??
Apples and oranges. DUI is the offense.
From spending years around felons, I have come to understand that the “felon in possession of a firearm” charge is ancillary and is used to beef up sentencing.
Posted on 6/18/26 at 10:35 am to stout
quote:
The law needs to be adjusted to be based on the schedule of narcotics
But pot has been considered a "schedule 1", as ridiculous as that sounds.
Posted on 6/18/26 at 10:37 am to 4cubbies
quote:
Can you articulate why a (or certain) felony convictions should be a restriction on the 2A and the likely impact it would have?
You really don't see the violence cut off between a class D and E felon (who can get their gun rights restored) vs a class C or higher as pretty reasonable?
Posted on 6/18/26 at 10:37 am to finchmeister08
Great job by the Supremes. Now what i do is legal. I'm known to smoke a joint on my front porch and fire off some suppressed 300 BLK, 12 gauge, 5.56 or .308. I live in the middle of nowhere far from Johnny Law, bur at least now I'm legal.
Posted on 6/18/26 at 10:39 am to finchmeister08
Sweet. I've been owning both for 30 years now. Granted I'm not a felon....lol
for the record I have never combined them.
for the record I have never combined them.
Posted on 6/18/26 at 10:39 am to stout
quote:
You really don't see the violence cut off between a class D and E felon (who can get their gun rights restored) vs a class C or higher as pretty reasonable?
If you are too risky to have a gun you should be locked up anyways.
If you are off paper you should have rights restored.
Posted on 6/18/26 at 10:43 am to 4cubbies
quote:
I have come to understand that the “felon in possession of a firearm” charge is ancillary and is used to beef up sentencing.
Perhaps that situation exists simply because a lot of felons still can't be trusted to obey the laws.
Posted on 6/18/26 at 10:44 am to BFIV
quote:
Perhaps that situation exists simply because a lot of felons still can't be trusted to obey the laws.
Charge them with breaking those laws then. We don't need to create additional laws that apply only to them.
Posted on 6/18/26 at 10:45 am to SludgeFactory
quote:
for the record I have never combined them.
No one has ever blown you a shotgun through a sh9tgun? The mother of all coughing fits.
Posted on 6/18/26 at 10:46 am to finchmeister08
Yet they won’t even attempt to overturn Spansberger’s AWB
Posted on 6/18/26 at 10:47 am to 4cubbies
quote:
From spending years around felons, I have come to understand that the “felon in possession of a firearm” charge is ancillary and is used to beef up sentencing.
I knew this is where you were going with your questioning
There is a system in place for lower-level offenders to get their gun rights restored
Class C and above felonies are violent felonies, which is why there is virtually no legal pathway for them to get their rights restored.
The SC has already categorized the 2A as a conditional right and that it is lawful to disarm felons. Along the same lines as speech inciting or threatening people is not protected speech, they clearly state that no constitutional right is absolute when it threatens public safety or the rights of others.
Posted on 6/18/26 at 10:47 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.
4Cubbies, the 2A is a restriction on the government that was supposed to prevent the government from passing any law or restricting the rights of the bearers and owners of arms. It doesn’t make any sense to ask should there be a restriction on the 2A… it is inherently a restriction on the government. It doesn’t say the “except if the gun owner smokes weed” or “except if the prospective gun owner is a bad guy”. It is plainly written and has a plain meaning.
Every single gun law is a violation of the constitution that states the government cannot restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Whether you or I think some gun laws are good and/or reasonable doesn’t matter - they are all violations of the constitution.
Even someone with a historical of violence or criminal activity is still a citizen. They still have the right to free speech, still have the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. Well then they should have all their rights. If someone is too dangerous that they shouldn’t be trusted with a gun, then that dangerous criminal should be in prison or executed. Once he’s back in society, he should have all his rights restored.
Form 4473 is an infringement of the second amendment. Form 4 is an infringement. Waiting periods are infringement. So are laws against short barrels or butt stocks or foregrips or barrel shrouds. Arguably they shouldn’t even be able to charge sales tax on a gun or even ammunition, as precedence has been set that a right cannot be taxed.
See Murdock v. Pennsylvania.
The government couldn’t restrict the freedom of the 1st amendment to Jehovah’s Witnesses by making them pay a tax to distribute religious literature.
See Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections.
The government can’t require people to pay a poll tax in order to vote.
Posted on 6/18/26 at 10:50 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:
2A is a restriction on the government that was supposed to prevent the government from passing any law or restricting the rights of the bearers and owners of arms. It doesn’t make any sense to ask should there be a restriction on the 2A… it is inherently a restriction on the government.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News