Breaking News: Supreme Courts strikes down law banning habitual marijuana users from owning firearms
- Thread starter Onewolf426
- Start date
Retired Bum
Professional
I read the report and I don't disagree with them. From the LEO days of my youth, alcohol was a lot worse than weed any day.....
PieterCoetzee
Professional
The weed of today is way more potent than the weed of the 70s. Today I think theres a general acceptance that drinking and driving dont mix; but that doesnt seem to be the same with pot
Retired Bum
Professional
My thing is simply, I never had any knock down, drag out fights with weed users, alcohol were a whole nother issue.
In 25 years, I never encountered a violent weed smoker. They got the munchies and the nods, ate what they could find and took a nap.
In 25 years, I never encountered a violent weed smoker. They got the munchies and the nods, ate what they could find and took a nap.
PieterCoetzee
Professional
Im not sure thats the same anymore at least it wasnt when I was working. I found drunks easier to deal with and fight when necessary but YMMV
Pitdogg2
Hellcat
100% !!
TEXASforLIFE
SAINT
Seems to be the left doesn't require a functional brain to be in office either.
KillerFord1977
Emissary
That means most of CA, CO and OR can now own a gun
BassCliff
Ronin
Hi,
This does not seem like a bad ruling, and quite limited. I like to have an adult beverage in my home, maybe two. But I do not indulge while I'm out and about and carrying. If a user limits their usage and will not be under the influence when carrying outside the home, I guess I don't have a problem with that.
I've noticed the wording on the 4473 has changed a little. Section A Line 21 e. now asks "Are you an unlawful user of...". So many states have legalized the medicinal and recreational use so the Feds seem to be giving a little leeway.
Thank you for your indulgence,
BassCliff
This does not seem like a bad ruling, and quite limited. I like to have an adult beverage in my home, maybe two. But I do not indulge while I'm out and about and carrying. If a user limits their usage and will not be under the influence when carrying outside the home, I guess I don't have a problem with that.
I've noticed the wording on the 4473 has changed a little. Section A Line 21 e. now asks "Are you an unlawful user of...". So many states have legalized the medicinal and recreational use so the Feds seem to be giving a little leeway.
Thank you for your indulgence,
BassCliff
Biggfoot44
Custom
Just from the odds and numbers you undoubtly did . I suspect your point was never Because of weed use .
With significant double digit percent of the population at least occasional indulging in weed , you can't interact with the public , and not encounter them .
That's not saying that they were stoned when interacted with , or a Stoner generally , just that they ever indulge .
Habitual Drunkard has definitions and legal standards . It doesn't categorically deny firearms ownership to anyone who ever has a beer .
Retired Bum
Professional
What he said, is mo better then what I writ....
Lo-Profile
Custom
I still work part time at a shop
Someone comes smelling like a skunk they'll be asked to leave
Same as if someone comes in visibly drunk you would not sell.
Here is a 2A attorney’s discussion on it. It’s a specific ruling in a specific case, not quite the broad brush gummies for all that guntuber tv of folks still in the Nancy Reagan just say no time are running with with
So that question is probably staying on the 4473
That said I am much more concerned with the over prescribed and people abusing big pharma narcotics tjan aomeknwy that smokes weed (other then it stinks a lot worse than it did in the 1970’s)
So that question is probably staying on the 4473
That said I am much more concerned with the over prescribed and people abusing big pharma narcotics tjan aomeknwy that smokes weed (other then it stinks a lot worse than it did in the 1970’s)
