They’re just trying to find other ways to take guns from leftists and trans people.
Also, since pot is federally illegal, and legal states don’t normally give the feds buyer info, how the hell would they even know? A form asking if you smoke pot? What stops someone from just saying they don’t?
the question on the form is not temporally bound; it asks if you are currently using. i read it as “are you smoking while filling the form out?”
the answer is always “no.”
I have heard (not sure) that at least here in California, the rule applies to using pot in the past year, or maybe it was 5 years. I expect it is written down somewhere.
it’s a fed form no? iirc it doesn’t say a time range other than “current”?
Idk maybe it’s documented some other place or the dealer is supposed to explain it. I’ve never dealt with the process myself.
It doesn’t even say that. It says:
Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana
or other stuff. It does not define “user”.
that’s it. yep. while ambiguity on a form gives leeway to the person who did not write it, this is still pretty clear to me. user of? (using while filling out form?) “addicted to”? ask any drunk they’ll tell you they’re not an addict. 😉
While that might be how you interpret it, I’m sure a court would disagree.
that’s my whole point. :)
Fraud charges.
I guess, but “regularly” is hard to prove in court, or at least it was before 2025. Also before 2025, something would have to happen for you to be investigated for that in the first place. I’m sure now they’ll just make up a reason to investigate pot smokers.
I do wonder how it would go over in court now. In a jury trial, the prosecution would likely still have to prove that you “regularly” smoke pot, right?
I suppose my point is that it probably won’t be very effective in stopping pot smokers from owning guns (especially those that already own guns) if it’s just a yes/no on a form.
A form asking if you smoke pot?
Yes, that’s exactly what already happens. The form in question is ATF 4473 for purchasing a firearm, and it is a federal crime to lie on that form. As far as the ATF is concerned, it does not matter if weed has been legalized in your state or not, or if it’s for medicinal purposes or recreational.
As of now, you cannot own a firearm if you are “an unlawful user of, or addicted to” pot or any other banned substance. This has rarely been enforced, and it’s hard to bring enough evidence to actually prove it. Were they a user when they bought it? A user an hour later? A month later? How do you even prove that in court?
The few times it’s been prosecuted, it’s usually one thing in a pile of more serious charges.
If the Supremes rule against it, then it’s just the status quo. Nobody can really prove it. There is some reason to think they’ll strike this down.
Yep, it was this stupid bullshit that they got Hunter Biden on for his illegal owning of a firearm.
The ambiguity serves their cause. I expected for them to give a vague ruling that keeps people worried. The nazis running the government want fear, uncertainty, and doubt because it makes people easier to control. This ruling will be “Sure, go ahead, we prob won’t disappear you and your family for no reason at all, trust us, and stay in line”
I think the answer lies in the Hunter Biden charges. They can ask the question when purchasing a firearm and then charge with a crime later if they can show that the person lied.
Honestly wouldn’t be shocked if they started going after recreational marijuana either. Some big liberal states have legal marijuana.
. . . if they can show that the person lied.
That’s the hard part, and the reason why it doesn’t get enforced.
Its not difficult to prove if you have a medicinal cannabis card. Not at all. All your purchases are prescribed and tracked.
Were you using it when you bought the gun? How long ago did you imbibe before then? What even is the time limit? Does your use count as addiction?
Is a federal prosecutor going to bother even pursuing those questions if they have to prove it in front of a judge and jury?
There’s so many ways a defense attorney could pick the case apart. They’re generally not going to prosecute this as the primary charge.
How is this legal? Even as someone who knows much tighter gun control would save thousands of lives, if they haven’t been committed then it doesn’t matter.
If they have been committed, then it would be legal/fair, although I might disagree
It’s legal because that’s what the law says. Arguably unconstitutional, but that’s what bringing it to the Supreme Court is supposed to be for. Nobody has really pushed this in front of the courts before.
it is a federal crime to lie on that form
But are you really lying when you think or feel you’re answering truthfully?
I.e., what is regular? Once a month? Once a week? These seem more “occasional” than “regular”. And even at 3+ times per week, in “regular” territory, what if you stop?
Are you still a regular smoker if you’ve been clean for a month? Two months? Three or four? Six or a year?
Of course, this is all under the assumption they don’t just get ICE’d or Venezuela-boated.
In the past, the Supreme Court has ruled that penalising someone for failing to file or omitting information on a form which would incriminate them violates Amendment 5.
The case was regarding a tax imposed on gambling. People who ran gambling operations had to pay a tax of 10% of the amounts wagered and register with the IRS. At this time, gambling was illegal (almost) nationwide. The IRS then made those registration records available to gaming authorities, who would use them to prosecute anyone who registered.
The court ruled that forcing them to register and then providing this information to gaming authorities to prosecute people violated Amendment 5, and thus a person so convicted for failing to register could assert an Amendment 5 privilege against conviction.
Edit: Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39
Yeah, I suppose my point is that it’s very difficult to prove in court (especially the “regularly” part), and something would likely have to happen alongside the charge for it to be investigated in the first place. In other words, it seems like mostly theater, although it would be another tool to further charge any leftists that smoke pot in the future.
Mostly, yes. That said, a change would actually be less of a problem for leftists arming up.
My local weed store tracks user’s purchases. I think every store i know of in NJ does.
Well, sure, but that doesn’t automatically mean the ATF has access to that.
They can buy that info from data traffickers.
This is already the law, they are actually looking to overturn it. Despite having used it to prosecute Hunter Biden.
Yeah, makes sense from that perspective.
People who regularly smoke weed should not own guns. Neither should anyone else. Sincerely, every developed nation.
If everyone else gets guns, then weed smokers get guns too, otherwise it’s a very convenient way to selectively apply gun restrictions to specific groups of people.
yeah, i agree the disparity is shit. there is no legitimate reason to treat weed smokers differently. if you were to use a gun in self defence, say, i can understand that whether you were impaired at the time might be PART of the legal picture, but that notion should apply evenly to everyone, irrespective of the drug. like you said, it is just another tool for targeted enforcement.
After smoking, I’d be too scared to even look at my gun, let alone use it.
Nah, guns are cool and fun.
Funny thing is, i agree. i used to like going to the range, shooting clay pigeons, etc. handguns are tightly controlled in my country, but i imagine i would like them too if i ever got to use one. i still don’t think just everyone should have one, though, because the societal price is too high to justify.
Seems reasonable.
So is weed.
deleted by creator
Good. If we can’t get rid of the pot fully, then make it so users’ rights and privileges are curtailed. It shouldn’t be “regularly” use, either. It should be whether the person has ever used the drug or supports use of the drug.
lol
Do you have the same strong feelings about more dangerous drugs?
Such as alcohol?
^ Fourteen years old either physically or mentally.
Yeah, good idea! After all, marijuana is so dangerous, unlike guns.
Why?
Marijuanas, not even once. lol. No way dude.
deleted by creator
Try reading the article, they’d like this
deleted by creator
The administration urged SCOTUS to consider overturning it.
The attorneys are the ones who prosecuted the guy whose case this is. Why would they argue against their own prosecution?
And he calls me a doofus. Fucking idiots
They can have it once it’s empty.
Well said.
In 2019 I asked my doctor if I should have my vaccinations boosted because I was traveling for work. He asked if I was traveling to third world countries. I said I was. He asked which ones and I replied, “The US.”
He boosted all of my vaccinations and added a couple of others.
Never happened
Here’s a Facebook post from 2021 after getting the AstraZeneca Covid vaccine talking about getting all those vaccinations two years before, in 2019.
Fuck you.
I swear I read this exact comment about the UK after brexit…
Good call.
I had them all as a kid but with the way things were going in the US I was afraid of bringing measles home. My wife has had the MMR four times and it doesn’t take. She had it as a kid then she was tested before each kid and they gave it to her again because she didn’t have antibodies.
i asked about meningicoccal , they would refuse if they dont think your in a risk population group. i was about varicella once, but i already shingles a long time ago, and that indicates a chickenpox infection, (the vaccination dint prevent or lessen the effect shingles) as i already had the viremic version of varicella.
I’m in Canada. My doughter got the meningococcal vaccine on her way to university but we had to pay for it. We then paid for it for our son who is in highschool. I got the RSV vaccine last year because I was receiving chemo. We can get the pneumococcal if we are immunecompromised or over…65?
I don’t think that they can prevent the shingles once you’ve had chickenpox. There is a drug on the market, famciclovir, that is extremely effective at treating shingles if you get it within 72 hours of the onset of symptoms. I had shingles in my 30s and got famvir and had a really easy ride.
deleted by creator
pure cocaine is often done by upper middle class and rich people, coke is for the poors. ketamine for people like musk.
What if I irregularly smoke pot?
Only can own ARs then
Like upside down? Or in a funny hat?
Far out man.
Watch as the GOP takes away gun rights from a sizable portion of their own pot smoking, 2A glazing base… and none will waiver their support.
Like clockwork, they get mad for all of 3 seconds, then they remember the GOP is leading the genocide against brown people and LGBTQ+ people, then they forget anything happened at all.
I wish people would read the articles. Weed is already Federally prohibited. The case is an attempt to overturn that.
It’s already illegal. This is a challenge to restore those rights.
One of the biggest potheads I know is a right wing trumpet with TONS of guns. The irony would be pretty sweet I gotta say.
deleted by creator
Fuck, I clearly only read the headline and inferred that they’d be looking for an excuse to take guns seat in states where it’s legal (mostly but not all bluer states).
And to add more to this, the plaintiff is from Texas.
Scotus will likely overturn this
I very much doubt it was doing much to help anyway. The rich fuckers who can afford both guns and weed are gonna do it either way.
I’ll take any form of gun control at this point
The case is not about implementing new gun control, but looking at if an aspect of existing control is unconstitutional.
