Trump DOJ: Guns Or Weed, Not Both

[The Brad Dad]

Trump admin lookin' to do some infringin':

WASHINGTON – The Trump administration’s aggressive defense of gun rights has at least one exception.

The government’s lawyers want the Supreme Court to make clear that regular pot smokers – and other drug users − shouldn’t be allowed to own firearms.

An appeals court has said a federal law making it a crime for drug users to have a gun can’t be used against someone based solely on their past drug use.

Limiting the law to blocking the use of guns while a person is high effectively guts the statute that reduces gun violence, the Justice Department told the Supreme Court. They’re asking the justices to overturn the appeals court’s decision.

Guns or weed? Trump administration says you can't use both

The Justice Department wants the Supreme Court to make clear that regular pot smokers, and other users of illegal drugs, cannot own guns.

www.usatoday.com

I'm all for anything that reduces the availability of guns, but this would seem at odds with conservatives' mistaken take on 2A.

Also: smoking pot being the pre-requisite to ban guns is strange as we've also been told the regime is working towards legalization of pot. If this sticks, it would seem to me a pretty easy threshold to take someone's guns away from them.

 

[Peacenik]

Isn't alcohol a drug?

 

[KingLeo]

By that logic anyone who regularly uses weed, alcohol, or any prescribed drugs of any kind should be banned from gun ownership. The fact that weed is illegal at the federal level shouldn't matter.

 

[craig]

Isn't alcohol a drug?

Being in possession of a gun should be just like driving a car. Not drunk, not high, and have a license.

 

[roberthughey]

Trump admin lookin' to do some infringin':

Guns or weed? Trump administration says you can't use both

The Justice Department wants the Supreme Court to make clear that regular pot smokers, and other users of illegal drugs, cannot own guns.

www.usatoday.com

I'm all for anything that reduces the availability of guns, but this would seem at odds with conservatives' mistaken take on 2A.

Also: smoking pot being the pre-requisite to ban guns is strange as we've also been told the regime is working towards legalization of pot. If this sticks, it would seem to me a pretty easy threshold to take someone's guns away from them.

​

United States v. Hemani​

Issue: Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), the federal statute that prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance,” violates the Second Amendment as applied to respondent.

Identify Prohibited Persons​

The Gun Control Act (GCA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms or ammunition, to include any person:

• convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
• who is a fugitive from justice;
• who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 802);
• who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
• who is an illegal alien;
• who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
• who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;
• who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or
• who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

The GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 922 also makes it unlawful for any person under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to ship, transport, or receive firearms or ammunition.

Further, the GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 922(d) makes it unlawful to sell or otherwise dispose of firearms or ammunition to any person who is prohibited from shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing firearms or ammunition.

 

[lynnwinslow]

Trump admin lookin' to do some infringin':

Guns or weed? Trump administration says you can't use both

The Justice Department wants the Supreme Court to make clear that regular pot smokers, and other users of illegal drugs, cannot own guns.

www.usatoday.com

I'm all for anything that reduces the availability of guns, but this would seem at odds with conservatives' mistaken take on 2A.

Also: smoking pot being the pre-requisite to ban guns is strange as we've also been told the regime is working towards legalization of pot. If this sticks, it would seem to me a pretty easy threshold to take someone's guns away from them.

Isn't smoking weed part of the bro culture? I think Don Junior might disapprove.

 

[bythoughts]

This sounds like an absolute nightmare for the courts to figure out. People being told they are using their so-called "constitutional rights", or that they are felons needing a long jail term, based on.... whether a jury thinks that three posts to social media over the past year count as a "habit"! I imagine it appeals to Trump because the decision will be made in a racist way, but even more often, it will be made in a random way.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

I can understand why Righties like their guns, considering......................

 

[SkyChief]

Trump admin lookin' to do some infringin':

. . . I'm all for anything that reduces the availability of guns, but this would seem at odds with conservatives' mistaken take on 2A.

An appeals court has said a federal law making it a crime for drug users to have a gun can’t be used against someone based solely on their past drug use.

Also: smoking pot being the pre-requisite to ban guns is strange as we've also been told the regime is working towards legalization of pot.

A person's pot smoking cannot be used to preclude their right to keep and bear arms.

If this sticks, it would seem to me a pretty easy threshold to take someone's guns away from them.

It cannot "stick". The whole point of the Second Amendment is to prohibit lawmakers from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms (including guns).

Only one gun control law empowers government to confiscate a person's gun(s) without any due process. Those are Red Flag Laws. Red Flag laws are STATE laws, which may deviate from federal statutes.

 

[mrjurrs]

Trump admin lookin' to do some infringin':

Guns or weed? Trump administration says you can't use both

The Justice Department wants the Supreme Court to make clear that regular pot smokers, and other users of illegal drugs, cannot own guns.

www.usatoday.com

I'm all for anything that reduces the availability of guns, but this would seem at odds with conservatives' mistaken take on 2A.

Also: smoking pot being the pre-requisite to ban guns is strange as we've also been told the regime is working towards legalization of pot. If this sticks, it would seem to me a pretty easy threshold to take someone's guns away from them.

Ban weed, but allow open carry in bars. The gun zealots are clueless.

 

[The Brad Dad]

An appeals court has said a federal law making it a crime for drug users to have a gun can’t be used against someone based solely on their past drug use.

A person's pot smoking cannot be used to preclude their right to keep and bear arms.


It cannot "stick". The whole point of the Second Amendment is to prohibit lawmakers from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms (including guns).

Only one gun control law empowers government to confiscate a person's gun(s) without any due process. Those are Red Flag Laws. Red Flag laws are STATE laws, which may deviate from federal statutes.

Welll, you should take it up with this gun grabbing admin. I see an EO in gun folks’ future

 

[rahl]

Being in possession of a gun should be just like driving a car. Not drunk, not high, and have a license.

The constitution doesn’t permit that.

 

[SkyChief]

Welll, you should take it up with this gun grabbing admin. I see an EO in gun folks’ future

I don't need to "take it up" with anyone. You should already know this.

The words "shall not be infringed" mean exactly that. Gun-Grabbers should be paying more attention, actually.

I fully realize how nonsensical that sounds. Gun-grabbers . . . . paying attention. LOL

 

[multivita-man]

Isn't alcohol a drug?

If I'm bein confronted by dude with guns and if he has to be on a substance, I'm praying that substance is weed and not booze.

 

[The Brad Dad]

I don't need to "take it up" with anyone. You should already know this.

The words "shall not be infringed" mean exactly that. Gun-Grabbers should be paying more attention, actually.

I fully realize how nonsensical that sounds. Gun-grabbers . . . . paying attention. LOL

I'm sure an EO can fix that.

 

[SkyChief]

I'm sure an EO can fix that.

See, that's the thing.

Nothing needs "fixing". It ain't broke.

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It's such a simple concept, yet it confuses so many ignorant people!

 

[The Brad Dad]

See, that's the thing.

Nothing needs "fixing". It ain't broke.

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It's such a simple concept, yet it confuses so many ignorant people!

Like the current DOJ?

 

[Loulit01]

I don't need to "take it up" with anyone. You should already know this.

The words "shall not be infringed" mean exactly that. Gun-Grabbers should be paying more attention, actually.

I fully realize how nonsensical that sounds. Gun-grabbers . . . . paying attention. LOL

What a bunch of nonsense.

1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Free exercise of religion is abridged in several ways: SCOTUS ruled it is illegal to take peyote during religious practices as some Native American did for hundreds of years. Mormons cannot engage in plural marriage. Animal sacrifice in Santeria is prohibited in many instances. Practices that conflict with public safety, order, or morals, can be restricted.

Freedom of speech is also restricted. You can't shout fire in a crowded theater. Trump has been fined over $83 million for libel in the defamation case of E. Jean Carroll. True threats, incitements to violence, speech constituting fraud is illegal.

Freedom of assembly is restricted. Permits are needed for some demonstrations. Blocking traffic can be prohibited. Some on the forum favor running over people who block traffic. Oklahoma has a law including a fine and imprisonment for blocking traffic during a protest.

Freedom of the press is restricted. More than a dozen states and communities have proposed or enacted laws to limit journalists’ access to public spaces, including barring them from legislative meetings and preventing them from recording the police.

So don't tell me the any restriction on 2nd Amendment rights is unconstitutional. It's absurd.

 

[PopMartian]

Read this.....

Law and Order is an Fallacy. Chaos Rules the Streets of America with Gun Violence. The Police are unable to stop the Crime. So Trump orders Boots on the ground. WTF. He is delusional.

Thugs don't give a damn about a USMC grunt standing on the corner 8 hours a day protecting a federal building. The hood is where all the action is.

 

[SkyChief]

What a bunch of nonsense.

1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. . . .

Freedom of the press is restricted.

Straw-Man argument noted and appreciated. This thread is not about freedom of the press. We are discussing the Trump Administration's attempt to prohibit pot smokers from having firearms.

THEY CANNOT DO IT, because the Second Amendment explicitly forbids ANY infringements on the right to keep and bear arms, and an Appellate Court ruled so. ("the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.")

So don't tell me the any restriction on 2nd Amendment rights is unconstitutional. It's absurd.

A restriction on a right is an infringement on a right.
____________________________________________________________________________________
in·fringe·ment
[inˈfrinjmənt]
(noun)

the action of limiting or undermining something:
_____________________________________________________________________________________

The Second Amendment explicitly forbids ANY infringements on the right to keep and bear arms.

Your (flawed) argument is based on ignorance of the U.S. Constitution, and the actual meaning of the word infringe.

 

[The Brad Dad]

Straw-Man argument noted and appreciated. This thread is not about freedom of the press. We are discussing the Trump Administration's attempt to prohibit pot smokers from having firearms.

THEY CANNOT DO IT, because the Second Amendment explicitly forbids ANY infringements on the right to keep and bear arms, and an Appellate Court ruled so. ("the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.")

A restriction on a right is an infringement on a right.
____________________________________________________________________________________
in·fringe·ment
[inˈfrinjmənt]
(noun)

the action of limiting or undermining something:
_____________________________________________________________________________________

The Second Amendment explicitly forbids ANY infringements on the right to keep and bear arms.

Your (flawed) argument is based on ignorance of the U.S. Constitution, and the actual meaning of the word infringe.

There is no such thing as an unfettered right.

 

[SkyChief]

There is no such thing as an unfettered right.

Straw-Man noted, and appreciated!

 

[roberthughey]

​

United States v. Hemani​

Issue: Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), the federal statute that prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance,” violates the Second Amendment as applied to respondent.

Identify Prohibited Persons​

The Gun Control Act (GCA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms or ammunition, to include any person:

• convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
• who is a fugitive from justice;
• who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 802);
• who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
• who is an illegal alien;
• who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
• who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;
• who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or
• who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

The GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 922 also makes it unlawful for any person under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to ship, transport, or receive firearms or ammunition.

Further, the GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 922(d) makes it unlawful to sell or otherwise dispose of firearms or ammunition to any person who is prohibited from shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing firearms or ammunition.

They are following the law.

 

[The Brad Dad]

Straw-Man noted, and appreciated!

Emotional response received.

 

[Jason Warfield]

See, that's the thing.

Nothing needs "fixing". It ain't broke.

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It's such a simple concept, yet it confuses so many ignorant people!

You may want to read what Scalia said in the Heller decision: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”