Poll: Supreme Court will decide if 'habitual drug users' lose their gun rights

[bearpaw]

Interesting question: Do you think 'habitual drug users' lose their gun rights or should not? Why or Why Not?

Supreme Court will decide if 'habitual drug users' lose their gun rights under 2nd Amendment
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-will-decide-if-habitual-drug-users-lose-their-gun-rights-under-2nd-amendment/ar-AA1OP0zD?

[trophyhunt]

Tough question, but, I know a guy who used to be a dirt bag, druggie thief.  He beat the odds and has been clean for decades now, stand up guy.  Should they lose their gun rights forever, I don't think so.  I think at the time they are in trouble and lost, possibly. But who keeps their guns while they struggle with the dragon?  How much time do they lose them for, how do we know if they are really clean??  Tough question, just not sure to be honest.   I think after a while felons can try to get their right to own a gun back, it takes time and money but they can get them back.  Maybe it can be the same way for habitual drug users, lose the right, but maybe not forever??

[HunterStrait]

There's plenty of violent alcoholics who are still allowed to own guns. A casual pot head with no criminal record is no worse.

[dwils233]

I read a comment somewhere that "more Americans have probably lied to the federal government on this one question on the 4473 than anything else" and I could see that being true. In which case, it seems like the question isn't fulfilling its intended purpose while also being out of touch with reality.

interested to hear how this goes, because even if they uphold it, it won't change anything about how honest and accurate people are

[nwmein199]

There's plenty of violent alcoholics who are still allowed to own guns. A casual pot head with no criminal record is no worse.

 

This is a blatant gun grab by the over-reaching government trying to infringe on our rights. HELL NO!

[fishngamereaper]

We'd be safer if they lost their driver's license and mode of transportation.

[Rat44]

Depends on what they consider a 'drug user'.
To me their is no difference between having a drink or a smoking a joint.
As long as you are not doing it while working,driving or shooting .
 Hard drugs are a different story.

[jrebel]

Like most things in life.....there isn't a black or white answer to this question. 

In my line of work, I could make compelling arguments for both sides.  I think the easy answer is....if you are a user of illicit or illegal drugs you should not be allowed to be in possession / own a firearm.  If you a user of a legal drug or alcohol you should not be in possession of a firearm if under the influence.  This gets very sketch because how do you determine "under the influence"??  Do you put a limit on it like we do driving?  Ultimately, it's a non issue unless the person under in influence makes it an issue....right? 

This is what I would ask anyone who says "habitual drug users" should be allowed to have firearms....  Would you allow someone in your inner circle that used meth or heroin on a regular basis while being in possession of a firearm?  I wouldn't.....it's just asking for accident or incident. 

[GWP]

"Habitual" is probably the hinge point here. I have heard different definitions from different 'officials' over the years. One even said "One use is enough" Wait, what?
Figure any more laws and rules will have ONE goal in mind, and it is not good for owning ANY firearms.
But no, I do not want someone loaded out of their gourd with a firearm any where around me.

[ljsommer]

Depends on what they consider a 'drug user'.
To me their is no difference between having a drink or a smoking a joint.
As long as you are not doing it while working,driving or shooting .
 Hard drugs are a different story.

This is the only question that matters. You have to first decide what you're going to call a drug. Lots of (legal, supervised) prescription drugs cause drowsiness, dizziness, and outright incapacitation. Alcohol obviously incapacitates a user, and is the second most dangerous drug only behind nicotine in terms of negative global impact to human health.

If you look at it through the lens of "legal vs illegal" then it gets easier but not without difficulty when it comes to state laws that can muddy the waters. If you look at it through the lens of actual impact to the user (and by extension the community) then it gets a lot tougher.

If you are an alcoholic that is drunk every night does that count? What about if you consume alcohol responsibly most of the time but then go to Cabo and get trashed?

What courts tend to look at when evaluating restrictions on consumers of substances is "what is the negative impact on this person's life as a result of their consumption?" and if the answer is "nothing, they're meeting all their responsibilities well and with regularity" then there may not be any restriction imposed.

It's an interesting conversation. I've seen enough alcohol abuse in my life to know that it's a nuanced conversation. As far as I am concerned, a "drug" is anything that alters your psychology or physiology in a meaningful way, whether you take it for that express purpose or not. For example, someone may consume THC because they want to get high, and that is the result. Someone else may consume alcohol because it goes great with their dinner, but after a couple of glasses they are also as inebriated as the THC consumer.
The intent is not as important as the impact, when it comes to the negative impact on your decision making.

[pianoman9701]

Look at the graph and turn it counter clockwise 1/4. There's your answer? 

[Pegasus]

Washington State passed a law a few years ago that if you get CHARGED with two DUI's within 7 years you forfeit your guns, possibly forever. Drugs or alcohol and you don't halve to even be carrying a gun at the time. You don't even have to be convicted. Just charged. Obviously this is just another way to confiscate guns. The US court may have an issue with the term "habitual drug user".

[Lalo]

Marijuana use is legal in Washington, but illegal federally, and it is a felony to lie about this when purchasing a firearm.
I don't know if the Supreme Court review of "habitual" will consider this, but it is interesting.
From the State of Washington:
https://lcb.wa.gov/education/federal_implications
Firearms
If you apply to buy a firearm (gun), you must complete Federal Form 4473, which asks about unlawful cannabis use. Since cannabis is still illegal federally, cannabis consumers may be rejected from buying a firearm. Lying on this form is a federal felony.

[Pegasus]

Marijuana use is legal in Washington, but illegal federally, and it is a felony to lie about this when purchasing a firearm.
I don't know if the Supreme Court review of "habitual" will consider this, but it is interesting.
From the State of Washington:
https://lcb.wa.gov/education/federal_implications
Firearms
If you apply to buy a firearm (gun), you must complete Federal Form 4473, which asks about unlawful cannabis use. Since cannabis is still illegal federally, cannabis consumers may be rejected from buying a firearm. Lying on this form is a federal felony.

Define "user". If you ever smoked a joint are you a "user"? That would eliminate over one half of America from buying a gun. If you did not smoke a joint today are you a "user"? How about when you get up in the morning and swear that you are never again smoking pot? Are you still a "user"? How about if you self-identify as a "non-user"?

[Fidelk]

Similarly, I believe if you have been legally prescribed certain medications (valium, pain killers, etc.) and use them as prescribed, you can be criminally charged for driving under their influence. Same as alcohol or cannabis. A lot comes down to legal interpretation.......some of which might even be correct.

I think the form used to ask if you were an "habitual drunkard"......