217
I hope they decide they can. That said the entire corpus of the Roberts court still needs thrown out
The way the law works currently it's just a mechanism to remove gun rights from people and to tack on extra bullshit charges to anyone who happens to get caught with a little weed and also owns guns. Sincerely hope they can actually change this law because it is almost entirely used for bullshit.
the gop hardon for weed+jailtime, to feed into the forprofit system, in order to get kickbacks plus use the prison population as part of the census.
NO ONE IN THIS COMMENT SECTION READ PAST THE HEADLINE.
Everyone here is assuming they're trying to outlaw this. It is already outlawed. They're looking to overturn it.
The assessment should consider ALL mind altering substances the gun owner consumes. Beer, weed, medications. Self-reporting isn't great, but better than nothing.
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?
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
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.”
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Wonderful, set precedent that the 2nd amendment is totally subject to the whim of the president. Then let's flip all of government in 2028 and work on fixing this gun problem once and for all.
i’m all for better gun laws, and I speak as someone who owns multiple and yet still does not trust the 2nd amendment anyway. I think we should be reminding folks that “amendments” don’t mean shit, and we need legit common sense laws.
and a separation of concerns when it comes to what a gov can and cannot do. eg: laws won’t stop ppl from owning guns, but mental health/healthcare WILL stop people from causing harm.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Well that's not the case though. It's up to interpretation by the Supreme Court. This is nothing new
Aren't the pot smokers more mellow and less likely to fight/shoot/kill someone. I think drinkers stand a better chance of violence. How about we leave both groups alone. Case closed ... next?
they should be the worry about the cocaine and meth users.
I think the issue should be pretty cut and dry. You can drink as often as you want and own guns. You can't go out shooting while you're drinking. You should be able to smoke whenever you want as long as you're not inebriated when you're shooting.
You can’t go out shooting while you’re drinking. You should be able to smoke whenever you want as long as you’re not inebriated when you’re shooting.
Fully agree, and have alienated myself from former friends over this.
You can drink all day and night. but don't you dare touch a firearm while drinking. I don't care if you're just a little buzzed, man
As far as I'm concerned, smoke weed every day. But don't you dare touch a firearm while high. I don't care if you're just a little toasty, man
Drugs and guns don't mix. Alcohol is a drug. Don't drink and shoot.
Well, drugs that impair you, anyway. Caffeine, for example, is fine, unless you've had so much that you get jittery.
What does this have to do with legally owning a gun. This isn't about shooting inebriated. This is about cherry picking one group and castigating them. I have no idea where you go the idea that anyone said it was okay to get high and shoot. That's a total straw man.
This ridiculous nonsense should and will get the NRA up in arms.
Chill dude, you're calling out "straw man" like I'm disagreeing with you. I'm saying that the rules should work the same way. There's no reason people that smoke should be banned from gun ownership, just like people who drink aren't banned.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
“SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, LIBTARDS!”
* Terms and conditions apply.
Tap for spoiler
Not applicable to blacks, liberals, queers, leftists, women, convicts, or users of the marijuanas. Sincerely, American Taliban, Guardians of Pedophiles.
Notice how they don't go after those who regularly do Ketamine or the Cokeheads sauntering the halls of the WH at any given hour.
pure cocaine is often done by upper middle class and rich people, coke is for the poors. ketamine for people like musk.
lol. so many rural gun owners smoke pot. the stereotype is a urban youth but it is so common in rural areas.
I'm gonna take a shot in the dark here and guess that they'll completely forget about the historical precedent test that they just randomly pulled out of their ass, but only when it comes to drugs, queer people, and leftists.
ATF form 4473 question 11(e) asks:
Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? [my bold]
Are you. Right at the moment you are checking the box, are you an unlawful user ...?
Caffeine and nicotine are stimulants.
Are you ... addicted to ... any ... stimulant ... ?
Now do alcohol and you have a gun free country :D
They're looking to overturn the law preventing gun ownership for drug users.
I'm kinda shocked how many people in this thread just made the assumption the court was trying to do the bad thing without even reading the article
Guilty 🫠
Just so we're all on the same page, the current status quo is that you cannot buy a firearm if you use pot. This ruling would potentially change that. No, it does not matter if your state has legalized it, or if it's strictly for medicinal use. The ATF doesn't care.
It's rarely enforced, but it's there.
No one else here bothered to get on this page.
I tried.
This thread is a pretty good example of why I say that even if you're completely against any guns existing in society at all, you should still know how they work and what current laws actually do. Otherwise, you get the jumping to conclusions and bad analysis that we see here.
This story is even stranger when you consider this:
Trump named a legal drug/pot dealing dispensary owner in Dearborn to be a special envoy to Iraq.
He has enough money to play in this grand pay to play scheme.
Ah yes, another spectacular "small government" approach from those Conservatives. "Don't tread on me, unless I'm brown/queer/leftist then tread all over"
I'm confused here. The current law bans Marijuana usage and owning a firearm. It has done so for decades.
The Supreme Court is considering legalizing it
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2025
217 points (100.0% liked)
News
32838 readers
2311 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS