Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Second Amendment Do You Believe The Second Amendment Entitles Marijuana Users to Own Firearms?

Illegal by federal law I do believe. What do you think? Would you call this crime extremely under-enforced?

I think you should be allowed to carry if your under the influence of alcohol too.
Why should you loose the right to defend yourself or loved ones because you have been drinking?
If something happens and the shooting is ruled unjustifiable in a court of law then you’ll have to pay the price. But if it’s justified your still alive to drink another day.

The right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Under the constitution, the federal gov't does not have the authority to ban drug or alcohol users, nor convicted felons, from owning guns. Such laws are themselves illegal.

This.

2A is pretty clearly written. The problem is citizens that put the "laws" first, then the Constitution.

Show me a law on the books in 1796 disallowing possession due to being under the influence, then I would agree with current law. Sans anything to that, their current laws are unconstitutional.

Personal responsibility...

That and it should not be a federal schedule 1 substance

Check out the latest ATF 4733 form your FFL has you fill out.

NOW it states, "do you use Cannabis, Marijuana, legal or illegal". On the current Class III form, that statement is highlighted. I don't remember seeing that on previous Class III forms.

If you check yes, I think they may disqualify you. Not sure, but why would they otherwise ask?

If you check no and the Pharmacy Management Program (PMP) in your states picks up a legal MJ recommendation, then you've probably committed fraud on a Fed form.

Feds have a scorched policy on MJ but let CA, CO and other states do their thing.

Ya think the Fed Govt may be a tad schizophrenic?

DF

Canabis Marijuana rather its legal or not this substance can stay in your blood system for up to 40 days ,so be careful ? blood tests ? that might be next to ruin your life ?

^^^ A N D T H I S ^^^

Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.

The only ones that should be denied firearms are those IN PRISON. If you are out you are legal.

I've always felt this way. If/When they release someone..... they are saying that they have paid their dues and are not a threat to society. So WHY are you denying them a right?

If they gun down one of your family, and then are eventually left out, which happens on a regular basis, have they paid their dues? Karen liberal judge made the decision they are not a threat.

Now you have solved the problem. If they killed somebody ( first degree) they should be executed. Don’t have to worry about repeat offenders. Hasbeen

Legal or illegal I don’t want someone high or drunk handling a firearm around me. That includes hunters. My buddies like yo drink at camp, but that is always kept for nighttime.

The text, history and tradition of legislation involving the 2nd Amendment do NOT support the loss of the right to gun ownership or possession for drug or alcohol abusers.

I've never noted this Forum before and just a few precepts here in general.
Rights enumerated within the original Ten Amendments to the Constitution carry very special powers and are ultimately determined by SCOTUS. These Rights were originally Freedoms assured against trespasses by the Federal Government. They were made applicable to the States as limiting their Sovereign Powers by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment also contains important Constructional Rights under categories of "Equal Protections", "Liberty Interests" and "Procedural Due Process". All important as granting SCOTUS broad powers to review and prohibit "State Actions" - a term in 14th A Law reflecting the State overstepping its bounds.
Next precept, "Nexus". The State Actions claimed in violations are typically stated in terms of "Nexus". That is the relationship between State Action and Constitutional prohibitions. "If such as open carry is lawful" the possession of narcotics, may of course be charged. But the use of "enhancements as armed" may well be a violation of Constitutional Rights. The "nexus" is the relationship the State must show in making laws enhancing penalties as a "compelling State interest of open carry to a direct proclivity to cause illegal narcotics possession or sale. A question of Law and such as use may be proven by compelling statistics of gun carry as instrument insuring safety in commission of a crime. So... This wild example of perhaps a Jury factor to determine if the weapon associated was a factor in promoting a crime. A specific circumstance. But NOT a general presumption that IF Carrying, an automatic enhancement or automatic evidence of the nexus between carry and intent to commit a crime. Is it illegal to carry a pocket watch as suggestion of "timing coordination" of a crime. If the act itself is constitutional, it may still be used as "evidence" IF sufficient nexus.
Next percept. Ever of "Balancing". To view an act or refraining from an act, and say it is either protected conduct or conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, NO. Gun laws may well provide broad Constitutional Authority to "Carry". But that is not unlimited. The right of State and Federal regulation must balance such as public safety issues against individual rights. Carry on commercial aircraft, just such example the right of "reasonable regulation commensurate with certain parameters of government discretion. "A Balance!"

Recently SCOTUS has found the dimension of Constitutional 14th Amendment "Procedural Due Process" in administration of lawful gun laws or widget laws. Where a compelling State (or Federal) interest is recognized, there must be a reasonable and objective "administrative mechanism" including a right of hearing to contest results unfavorable to the party complaining. Generally known by now, a law enforcement official "discretionary" right to allow or refuse certain conduct, on self-judgement, does not afford Constitutional Due Process and therefore is unconstitutional. Now again the "balancing". Barking dogs in urban night settings are going to afford far more enforcement discretion than right to carry. Balancing in terms of rights affected.
If you want to play the game of "Constitutional Law interpretation" look at the 2nd amendment cases and particularly all of the Justices' "Opinions".
No legal advice intended nor to be taken! Ta Da!
***

short answer today is "No" pot use is illegal under federal law, notwithstanding some recent judicial qualifying of that principle. I like to think the founding fathers did not care until your marksmanship was expected when the British were massed for an attack and who had confidence in an always stoned Minuteman?

Fellow patriots expected better.... And, as to today's concealed carry and a gunfight, try admitting in court you were stoned when you killed an assailant, and escaping civil liability...you will be liable!!!

There should be NO exceptions to the constitution other than those explicitly written into the constitution. From the text of the second amendment: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Much like the Ten Commandments, the constitution and amendments stand as ultimate law, no additional conditions or exceptions, no matter what do-gooder tries to add their own spin.