collapse

Advertisement


Author Topic: Federal Judge Rules Banning Guns for Marijuana Users is Unconstitutional  (Read 1138 times)


Offline Knocker of rocks

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: Aug 2011
  • Posts: 8582
  • Location: the Holocene, man
Re: Federal Judge Rules Banning Guns for Marijuana Users is Unconstitutional
« Reply #1 on: February 06, 2023, 06:57:59 PM »
Good

Offline Iveexcaped3

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (+4)
  • Longhunter
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2019
  • Posts: 671
  • Location: Yakima,WA
    • Riverside Construction, LLC
Re: Federal Judge Rules Banning Guns for Marijuana Users is Unconstitutional
« Reply #2 on: February 06, 2023, 08:38:30 PM »
Good. Someone that uses thc for pain relief instead of oxy hydro or some other pharma pain relief shouldn’t be restricted of their 2A rights.

Offline pianoman9701

  • Mushroom Man
  • Business Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2011
  • Posts: 42933
  • Location: Vancouver USA
  • WWC, NRA Life, WFW, NAGR, RMEF, WSB, NMLS #2014743
    • www.facebook.com/johnwallacemortgage
    • Apply for a loan
Re: Federal Judge Rules Banning Guns for Marijuana Users is Unconstitutional
« Reply #3 on: February 07, 2023, 08:41:41 AM »
Good ruling. There are still laws which prohibit use while intoxicated. Many vets use MJ and THC for PTSD and joint pain.
"Restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens based on the actions of criminals and madmen will have no positive effect on the future acts of criminals and madmen. It will only serve to reduce individual rights and the very security of our republic." - Pianoman

Offline salmosalar

  • Political & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hunter
  • ***
  • Join Date: Oct 2019
  • Posts: 241
Re: Federal Judge Rules Banning Guns for Marijuana Users is Unconstitutional
« Reply #4 on: February 07, 2023, 09:37:59 AM »
This ruling has little to do with MJ. It is about the "text history and tradition" test outlined in NY v. Bruen.

There are going to be a lot more rulings like this one and rulings where a judge views the "text history and tradition" far differently. Lower courts are going to struggle with the test in my opinion. The original bill of rights and constitution was all a compromise. Because of that determining "text history and tradition" is a subjective thing. Joining that subjective/ historic portion with amendments like the 14th is pretty darned tricky. Buckle up, the Bruin ruling is going to make for a lot of inconsistent rulings from lower courts. 

The question will then come as to whether the other portions of the bill of rights are subject to the "text history and tradition" test. They (SCOTUS) utilize this line of thinking in the Dobb's case as well. The historical precedent cited in that case clearly limited unenumerated rights such that American's have come to know as basic rights. It is expected that those rights such as certain privacy and marriage rights will be overturned using the same reasoning.

This will be fascinating to see.

 


* Advertisement

* Recent Topics

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal