DOJ: Marijuana Users Aren’t Law-Abiding or Responsible Enough to Exercise Second Amendment Rights

Previous Post
Next Post


Every state prohibits driving while intoxicated, recognizing that alcohol use impairs the ability to safely operate a motor vehicle and increases the risk of potentially lethal accidents. Using a cellphone also impairs the ability to safely operate a motor vehicle and increases the risk of potentially lethal accidents. It therefore makes sense to prohibit cellphone users from owning cars.

That faulty syllogism bears more than a passing resemblance to the Biden administration’s defense of the federal law that makes it a felony for cannabis consumers to possess firearms. That law, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) argues in an appeal brief filed last week, is “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation”—the constitutional test established by the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. To make its case, the government cites laws passed in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries that prohibited people from carrying or firing guns while intoxicated, which it implausibly argues are analogous to the gun ban for marijuana users that Congress imposed in 1968.

The DOJ is asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit to uphold a 2022 decision in which Allen Winsor, a federal judge in Florida, dismissed a Second Amendment challenge to that gun ban by state-authorized medical marijuana patients. In the 10th Circuit, meanwhile, the Biden administration is appealing a contrary 2023 ruling by Patrick Wyrick, a federal judge in Oklahoma who concluded that the law, 18 USC 922(g)(3), is unconstitutional.

The government’s 11th Circuit brief wisely eschews the DOJ’s earlier reliance on what Wyrick called “ignominious historical restrictions” that disarmed slaves, Catholics, loyalists, and Native Americans. Those precedents, the government had argued, showed that legislators have the authority to withhold gun rights from any group they deem “untrustworthy.” But the DOJ is still arguing that “the people” protected by the Second Amendment are limited to “law-abiding, responsible citizens,” a category that it says does not include cannabis consumers or anyone else who breaks the law, no matter how trivial the offense.

That claim seems inconsistent with President Joe Biden’s position that marijuana use should not be treated as a crime. But the meat of the Justice Department’s argument is the claim that early laws targeting drunken gun handlers establish a “historical tradition” that justifies threatening cannabis consumers with up to 15 years in prison if they dare to exercise their Second Amendment rights. That argument glosses over crucial details that show these “historical analogues” were fundamentally different from the law that the Biden administration is defending. …

The DOJ also quotes a 1946 history noting that “at the founding ‘those afflicted with mental diseases were generally treated as though they had been stripped of all… their rights and privileges.'” In the 18th century, the government adds, quoting a 2009 law review article, “justices of the peace were authorized to ‘lock up’ ‘lunatics’ who were ‘dangerous to be permitted to go abroad.'” Evidently, marijuana users should be thankful that they have been stripped only of their Second Amendment rights and not all of their other “rights and privileges,” including the right to be free of arbitrary and indefinite imprisonment.

The constitutional question is not whether this attitude makes sense. It manifestly does not, as Biden himself should be willing to concede, since he decries the injustice of criminalizing marijuana use. The constitutional question, as framed by the Supreme Court in Bruen, is whether the policy based on that attitude is “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” If these are the best “historical analogues” the government can come up with, the answer seems clear.

— Jacob Sullum in The DOJ Says Forbidding Pot Users to Own Guns Is Like Telling People Not to Carry Guns When They’re Drunk

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. The problem with weed from a legal stand point is that it IS illegal federally. Pardoning everyone for it doesn’t change that fact. That is just a continuation of the same lawlessness that we have been seeing in recent years. If we were dealing with a reasonable sane president, we would be watching him remove that law from the books instead of doing this. Removing the prohibition would in itself remove the need for it to be part of the 4473. It’s all just pandering.

    • Propaganda: “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation”

      Truth: “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of Race Based Gun Control”

      The bigger problem is there could be 1000 replies to this topic and no one would say a thing about a line of crap concocted to stick a smiley face on Gun Control.

      Take another hit maaaan…you won’t feel a thing while Gun Control zealots are f-n you.

      • When I tell you you need better messaging this is exactly what I am referring to. Excellently put together, coherent, and doesn’t immediately turn off people on the fence. Well done.

        • FWIW you could go ask most any black person about it. I have and still do and find it quite enlightening. And insightful.

    • More empty virtue signaling from the Democrats and Biden. Makes a good soundbite for the evening news but in reality it does nothing.

    • but the president cannot nullify or remove lawson his own say-so.That is the job of the Congrfess and he knows it.

      I believe the prohibition of gun ownership/purchase by anyone who has or does use marijuana was NOT enacted by the Congress, but by BATF when they rewrote the 4473form a few years back. Again that’s the job of CONGRESS.

      CONGRESS needs to remove marijuana from the list of Schedule One drugs. Thatcaegoryis reserved for substances that are HIGHLY ADDICTIVE and also have NO MEDICINAL VALUE.

      Neither is true of marijuana or its derivatives.

      • “but the president cannot nullify or remove lawson his own say-so.That is the job of the Congrfess and he knows it.”

        Which one of the 18 Enumerated Powers grants Congress the power to regulate any substances that can be produced or consumed in the United States?

        This is a State power – the Federal DEA should not exist.

  2. and not to forget that the reason states can legalize pot now was derived from, years ago, a decision of the DOJ that California could legalize it and the DOJ would not treat its individual use and posession as a crime or illegal if it stayed in the state and didn’t happen on federal property in the state.

  3. The republicans under Donald Trump’s leadership legalized inductrial marijuana in 2018. Under the democrats and Biden’s leadership they not only failed to Decriminalize marijuana at the federal level. They also have not made it any easier for cannabis dealers and growers to use the banking system for their legalized business.

    I agree I think marijuana smokers are irresponsible. Even more so than people who drink alcohol and handle guns. Because at least there is widespread public shaming and condemnation of alcohol and gun use together.

    On the other hand the pot heads believe you can drive. fly airplanes, shoot guns, and perform brain surgery, all while under the influence of marijuana.

    And the gun stores I frequent have signs posted saying that if you smell of marijuana you will not be allowed in their business. They won’t sell you a thing.

    But freedom is messy. So sell the pot heads their guns. But you’ll never be able to rely on them as responsible gun owners. Most of them are only recent converts to supporting a second amendment. They have a long history of supporting gun control.

    • Give poor Biden a break. He’s busy curing cancer. Something they’ll need when all these pot smokers chickens come home to roost.

      Remember when getting people to quit smoking was a cause? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

      Now this is on the rise with more carcinogens and more heavy metals in every puff.

      Seems like concern over 2nd hand pot smoke should be a thing but you can’t go anywhere in VT, ME, CT or MA without reeking clouds in the air.

      • As I have been saying for a while now. The “Liberty Freaks” don’t want to face the consequences that go with the stupid actions they commit. They refuse to take responsibility. They always come to the “straight people” to bail them out.

        They say, “Legalize all drugs”. BUT THEN give me your tax money to pay for my “free” drug treatment. My “free” intravenous needle exchange. My “free” medical care for all the HIV and STD infections, that occur with people, who lose all moral self-control when they’re intoxicated.

        And also make it easier to steal from the law abiding. When they are intoxicated/addicted, in order to pay for their drugs. See proposition 47 in California.

        “Now this is on the rise with more carcinogens and more heavy metals in every puff.”

        Marijuana smoking is more dangerous than tobacco smoking. But I personally know convenience store clerks who were robbed at gunpoint for the tobacco cigarettes in the store. And not the cash in the cash drawer. Tobacco is a very addictive substance. And marijuana is also a very addictive substance. Because people will shoplift like crazy in order to pay for the weed they smoke.

    • “On the other hand the pot heads believe you can drive. fly airplanes, shoot guns, and perform brain surgery, all while under the influence of marijuana.” IMO, this is a seriously flawed opinion of people that choose MJ over alcohol.

      • Rand, I agree with you. I know a lot of responsible cannabis users. They’ve raised families, paid their taxes, help build America, etc. They know when it’s safe to consume and when it’s not. They should not be denied any of their civil rights.

    • You sound just like a anti gun democrats who makes laws about the guns they know nothing about …IMO.
      I also doubt you know very many folks who smoke it, other than the BS you’ve seen on TV/movies.
      There’s plenty of responsible people who own and run companies, businesses, who own nice homes and who’ve raised children who are successful , and these people just happen to enjoy pot too.
      Because by your thinking people who drink alcohol have to be completely irresponsible just because they drink alcohol…right?
      Yet look at how many gun owners drink alcohol and are legally allowed to own firearms. There’s no “Do you use alcohol” question of the 4473 form is there?
      Please quit stereotyping people, like the democrats stereotype gun owners with mass shooters. Please think differently from people like Biden, Dianne Feinstein, Swalwell and the rest of their ilk.

      Think liberty instead of stereotyping.

  4. Once again MEH. Get yer pot the old fashioned way. I’m sure there are a lot of partakers who are “responsible” gat owners!

    • “Get yer pot the old fashioned way.”

      From J.J. at the corner bar? 🙂

    • As sketchy as that can be, other than growing your own, and while I don’t promote drug use (I simply argue against drug control) I have to say that I fully support people engaging in an underground economy that denies the IRS its “fair share”.

      Starve the beast. Become ungovernable.

      Your alternative at this point is to be “governed” really hard, without lube until it’s determined that keeping you alive is no longer worth the cost and you are disposed of.

  5. “…a category that it says does not include cannabis consumers or anyone else who breaks the law, no matter how trivial the offense.

    Hence the position that anyone who says “There oughta be a law” is suspect.

    Let’s be real, it’s all about government power and nothing else. Everything these people do comes back to concentrating power. More dangerous than all of the listed items about “driving” is driving while tired. Numerous studies have shown this and the DOT has talked about it.

    But there’s no test for “tired”. If they mange to make one, real or fake, expect half the country to be locked up really damn fast. And, if .gov has it’s way, those people will be “irresponsible” and disarmed.

      • The introduction to Cicero’s The Law provides a fleshed out version of this, which Cicero got from Plato and others and then expanded upon as part of a general explanation/background on the root of Natural Law.

        It’s well worth the read. You can get a double book, containing The Republic as well for ~$12. It’s about 150 pages with translator’s and editor’s notes. It can be read in a weekend.

      • Ragnar,

        And this would be my point with “gun control” and most other laws – they are not needed for the responsible people; they are not effective for the irresponsible people.

        “Passing a law” has never stopped anybody from doing anything they already were inclined to do. If you’re the kind of person who would drive drunk, laws against drunk driving won’t stop you. If you are the kind of person who would use a gun to rob or kill a stranger for your own gain, a law against you owning a gun won’t stop you.

        Gangbangers with multiple violent felony CONVICTIONS buy guns every damn day. “Universal background checks” WILL NOT stop, or even slow, this activity.

        • The issue here is that from a purely utilitarian view you are correct but that most utilitarians will deny your premise because they (and nearly all Leftists) buy into the notion that normal people are, fundamentally, evil.

          They buy this because they, knowingly or unknowingly, buy into the ground level arguments which are based on a 1972 paper known as Famine, Affluence and Morality by a gun named Singer. That paper is often trotted out as proof positive that the vast, vast, vast majority of people are evil and therefore must be controlled.

          If we take the conclusion of that paper at face value then we have a perfect logical justification for gun laws (and a host of other things that the Left loves) because they need not be entirely or even mostly effective in order to reduce the level of evil in the world, evil which we know exists because we accept the conclusion of the argument presented in that paper which proports to prove this case.

          You simply cannot be trusted. Laws may not prevent your behavior but they’re worth a shot because if they are anything other than 0.0% effective at their stated goal then they reduce the net level of evil in the world, thereby reducing the gross and making humanity better.

  6. A bit of a sticky wicket, I fear.

    There’s a difference between being a marijuana user, and being under the influence at the time of a gun use in public. So, I suppose I consider grass use like alcohol use…

    • “So, I suppose I consider grass use like alcohol use…”

      Something young people do to experiment and relax and old people lie about using “for the taste”?

      Also, don’t store your wickets in your bag of chronic and it won’t be sticky.

      • I’ve enjoyed far more than my share of what you call ‘chronic’, we just called it stickey-bud back then.

        If they ever federally recreationally-legalize it here, I might grow me a little under the humid, sub-tropical Florida sun…

    • Your not going to get a contact drunk from being in the presence of drinkers. Although you might get hurt from a drunk being stupid. However, there is an argument to be made for weak people that drink just because others are. But that can be said about a great many things.

    • So the ATF needs to add the “Are you a user of alcohol?” to the 4473 form…and if answered “yes”, it’ll deny one of owning firearms….right? And same for tobacco.

  7. When people are arrested in the big cities downtown areas carrying a gun (1) Do they have a permit to carry, and (2) If they are arrested with drugs and a gun, is the ATF notified and are they charged with federal crimes??? I doubt it. So if the government isn’t truly serious about these crimes why should we be serious about our government?………

      • possum,

        That’s what they tell us – just ask Senile Joe and Kamal-toe Harris. “We’re for the PEE-PULL!!!” “We are your government, here for your benefit! Just ask us!!”

  8. Yet on the other hand they legalize weed, promote its use, etc., they allow fentanyl to flood into our country. I’d say it’s a mixed message our government(s) are sending citizens.

    • Tabbacy is horrible (a tiny sniff/slight odder will kill) but pot is awesome. It will cure every thing from dandruff to lumbago. Makes progs smarter, the modern snake oil – Prog/pothead

  9. Pay attention to what we your benevolent overlords tell you is important! Stop believing what your lying eyes are telling you.

  10. while I don’t smoke it. I do take a plant base pill for nerve pain. it doesn’t get me high or anything like that but, not sure if it would show up in a test

    • if there was a pill for the pain the government intentionally inflicts on its law abiding citizen …

      • There is! It comes in various dosages measured in grains. That’s the literal reason for the 2A in the first place.

        Am I not supposed to say that out loud/in text?

      • There is such a pill, it’s made out of metal and goes around 3000fps.
        Gunms dont cause suicide , the government does.

  11. How about we get completely ‘out’ of the business of dictating what chemicals adults can legally put in the own bodies?

    If people could buy generic heroine & meth at Walgreens, this drug war would take care of itself in a couple months.

  12. Wow, doublespeak! How can Biden legitimately say that lawbreakers are basically not citizens? Biden spends all of his/her/its/they/them/ze’s energy helping the lawbreakers, his cronies, and his criminal family.

    This is way beyond defendable in a court of law.

    • He’ll get all kinds of great press for giving people a “second” chance. They’re pretending like people are doing hard time in federal prison for smoking a joint. More propaganda…

      • It did happen – beatniks did do time in prison, some > 4 years for personal amounts. Late 50s, well into the 60s.

      • Dude,

        Yeah, and today (and for at least a decade), NOBODY gets prosecuted or convicted for “smoking a joint” or possessing personal-use amounts of marijuana. EVERYONE in prison today for “possession of marijuana” was busted for something more serious, and did a plea-bargain for a simple possession charge. Since DAs and US Attorneys get evaluated on their conviction rate, they’d rather make a deal for a “lesser included” charge than take a chance of losing in court. That’s how the “justice system” works.

      • At one time one joint would get you years in prison. And it wasn’t that long ago either.

    • Seriously! They want as many laws on the books as possible so they can selectively enforce them.

  13. This fall a new documentary “Narco Circus”. Expose about the Obama DEA/ATF and their (and Mexican gov’t) scandal and partnership with the Sinaloa Cartel (and it’s head thug El Chumpo).

    The history of the lawless ATF (Obama) gun running will make for interesting viewing. The dems think they successful buried “Fast and Furious”. Hopefully Obiden’s role will not be buried.

  14. “How about we get completely ‘out’ of the business of dictating what chemicals adults can legally put in the own bodies?”

    For the most part, I agree, but then don’t come to the taxpayers to fix the problems your abuses and addictions cause.

    Booze, narcotics, gambling, impulse buying- whatever. Have at it but pay your own consequences.

    • THIS!! ^^^^^^

      All day, THIS!! ^^^^^^

      Don’t tell me what to do, but if I do it, and f*** up, don’t “subsidize” my f***-up.

      • “Don’t tell me what to do, but if I do it, and f*** up, don’t “subsidize” my f***-up“

        So no lung/oral motor cancer treatment for tobacco users?

        So no medical coverage for MC riders with no helmet?

        • They’re welcome to pay for their own medical care. Just don’t come crying to me because you abused yourself.

        • No, you fucking drooling imbecile, no treatment AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE.

          You really are too stupid to insult.

    • It all works swimmingly until we get to those programs that retirees are forced into (and which they overwhelmingly support too), which is where the long-term consequences are most likely to be seen for any behavior that doesn’t cause what I’ll call “acute death”.

      The truth is that our medical system is already ~80% socialized and getting worse. It will get markedly worse if it goes to 100% but right now we almost have the worst possible combination, a fascist-esque system where losses are nationalized and gains are privatized. This results in worse outcomes that is creating a death spiral of what some call “sick care”.

      This is one where I don’t really have a fix for it. Maybe I could find it with research but I’m honestly not sure how you wind this back with picking a group to screw over and then doing it. We’re approaching that point with SS too.

      What really worries me is the way society has been intentionally divided over pretty much everything for 20 years now. The cracks are starting to show and, as I’ve pointed out, maybe it’s not a plan but if one wanted a plan to get rid of the what the Commies have long called “useless eaters” (old people) this would be a pretty good one.

      Make everyone hate each other, crash the system, gaslight both groups some more and watch everyone <55 go after the "greedy" retirees.

  15. In Mississippi, you were either “fer it” or “agin it.”

    Judge N. S. Sweat was both.

    “On Friday, April 4, 1952, at only 28 years old and in his last year as legislator, he delivered his legendary “If by Whiskey” or “The Whiskey Speech” to a banquet room filled with statesmen and their wives at the old King Edward Hotel in Jackson. He stepped to the podium and stated his position in his speech, reprinted here in full:

    “My friends, I had not intended to discuss this controversial subject at this particular time. However, I want you to know that I do not shun controversy. On the contrary, I will take a stand on any issue at any time, regardless of how fraught with controversy it might be. You have asked me how I feel about whiskey. All right, here is how I feel about whiskey:

    If when you say whiskey you mean the devil’s brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster, that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children; if you mean the evil drink that topples the Christian man and woman from the pinnacle of righteous, gracious living into the bottomless pit of degradation, and despair, and shame and helplessness, and hopelessness, then certainly I am against it.

    But, if when you say whiskey you mean the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine, the ale that is consumed when good fellows get together, that puts a song in their hearts and laughter on their lips, and the warm glow of contentment in their eyes; if you mean Christmas cheer; if you mean the stimulating drink that puts the spring in the old gentleman’s step on a frosty, crispy morning; if you mean the drink which enables a man to magnify his joy, and his happiness, and to forget, if only for a little while, life’s great tragedies, and heartaches, and sorrows; if you mean that drink, the sale of which pours into our treasuries untold millions of dollars, which are used to provide tender care for our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our dumb, our pitiful aged and infirm; to build highways and hospitals and schools, then certainly I am for it.

    This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise.”

  16. I don’t care what others do with their bodies, smoke pot, drink, shoot up, drive fast, smoke tobacco, etc. as long as it doesn’t affect ME. The war on “whatever” is just a way to control the populace.
    I do have a problem with: “To make its case, the government cites laws passed in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries that prohibited people” about the Bruen decision. The Bruen decision certainly isn’t about the 19th century, and the 18th-century timeframe is only up to the early 1830s.

    • Not Left,

      (Like the handle!) My question would be, “Why does that even matter?” Many things were “illegal”, right up until 7/4/1776. The Founding philosophy was based on “the inherent rights of Man” – and NO, the Founders were not always consistent with their philosophy.

      But the basic idea was, “Let people do what they do, so long as they don’t hurt people.” Me OWNING (or even carrying) a gun hurts NO ONE. If I USE the gun, I am (and should be) solely responsible for the appropriateness of my use.

      If I drink, that’s on me. As long as I don’t get belligerent and start fights, why the f*** is that any business of yours? Don’t like “drunk people”? Don’t go to bars. Don’t “like” people carrying guns? Don’t carry one. Don’t like drugs? Don’t do drugs. Easy-peasy, lemon-squeezy. Until one of those people (drunks, gun owners, druggies, etc.) actually threatens/does anything to you, it’s nunya. Stop trying to tell the rest of the world what they “should” do (according to you).

      We have WAAAAAYYYYYYYYY too many Karens in the world.

  17. “First: I’m pardoning all prior federal offenses of simple marijuana possession. There are thousands of people who were previously convicted of simple possession who may be denied employment, housing, or educational opportunities as a result. My pardon will remove this burden.”
    At the ‘Federal’ level has anyone been convicted of simple possession? I believe not one person,,, could be wrong. LGB’s statement is all political b.s..

    • Vinny,

      Unfortunately, because of the COMMON practice of plea-bargaining, we do have more than a few inmates convicted of possession – who were charged for, and likely guilty of, much more serious crimes.

      Personally, I am a YUGE fan of the idea of ending plea bargains entirely – it will encourage prosecutors not to pursue questionable cases (and they shouldn’t be, anyway – burden of proof, and all that), and will encourage defense attorneys to take reasonable sentences for obviously guilty clients (“Look, ten years is a long time, but . . . if you make them go to trial and lose – and you probably will – you’re looking at 20+. Take the deal and stop bitching; the DA gave you a Christmas present!”).

      The system PRIOR to “woke” was f***ed up; the current system, especially in cities with Soros-funded prosecutors, is demonstrably worse.

    • FWIW in many states the state law on drug possession sentencing is far worse than the federal law.
      Example” Possession of a small amount of Cocaine in SC is 2.5 yrs. Federally it’s 6 months.

  18. Cannabis/Marijuana and it’s derivative THC has no legitimate medical use and is thus categorized as a Schedule 1 drug by the federal government. Users/Addicts of Schedule 1 drugs are for these reasons prohibited by the federal GCA 68.

    The Biden Administration and socialist-democrats could have changed this but, to do so would be to give firearms users a “win” and they can’t do that.

    • Ranger Rick,

      What is YOUR definition of “legitimate medical use”? Just asking, for a friend.

      I have the misfortune of having had three close friends die, in particularly horrible, painful ways, from cancer, and I was around them during their “treatment”. Ever been around someone going through HEAVY chemotherapy (for, in my case, Stage IV liver cancer)? The phrase “it ain’t pretty” doesn’t come close. Or watched a 6’4″ 225 lb. guy go from a buff jock to a 112 lb. skeleton, in constant pain, on radio/chemo therapy? No? Then STFU.

      I can witness that, in both cases, they got equal or greater relief from symptoms, with FEWER side effects, with cannabis. Big Pharma shouldn’t define “legitimate medical use”, champ.

      • I watched myself go from 225lb to 163lb in one year from radiation treatment for cancer. FWIW my cancer doctor told me LIQUOR was the worst for throat cancer…. worse than cigarettes or pot. He worked at UNCCH .

    • It seems hundreds of actual scientists, doctors and pharmaceutical company’s are still investigating the more then 400 compounds found in this plant. Perhaps you should stick with hugging trees or counting trout.

      • Yep trust the doctors…after all they told us all we needed to take the Covid 19 vaccine.
        I had two lifelong friends, and one cousin who believed them. They died from the vaccine within 4 weeks after taking it.

    • BS. It helps cancer/radiation treatment patients get their appetite back, along with a few other uses. Read up on it.

  19. Don’t Do That: Byron Donalds Chides Dem Witness At Hearing On ATF And The Second Amendment.

    • the person being questioned towards the end of the video is the representative anti-gun activist for the Everytown anti-gun group and he is the one that told ATF to do the unconstitutional rule on stabilizing braces.

    • .40 cal,

      Gotta say, this young man, Byron Donalds, is razor-sharp, PARTICULARLY for a Congresscritter. He actually sounds like he had a functional cerebrum. Yeah, he’s a politician, but . . . if we HAVE to have politicians, please give us smart ones. Contrast Byron Donalds with America’s Dumbest Bartender. I rest my case.

  20. “DOJ: Marijuana Users Aren’t Law-Abiding or Responsible Enough to Exercise Second Amendment Rights”
    just like democrats

  21. Don’t drive or handle guns while you’re drunk. Don’t drive or handle guns while you’re high. This isn’t complicated.

    • Pete,

      They’d be happy stripping you of your gun rights WITHOUT a parking ticket. Sure, they’ll use any excuse . . . but they don’t feel like they need an excuse. Don’t allow the squirrel to distract you; the issue is CONTROL. They don’t want you to have guns because it reduces their level of CONTROL.

      An armed person is a citizen; a disarmed person is a serf. Never been much interested in being a serf.

      • Lamp:
        “An armed person is a citizen; a disarmed person is a serf. Never been much interested in being a serf.”
        Well put, and a basic concept. I wish that more of our fellow “inhabitants” understood that, but they don’t. Maybe they want to be serfs and let somebody else do their thinking for them.

  22. TBF, they are not wrong.
    I never have and never will consider myself “law abiding”.
    No sane person would.

  23. Most if not all states that allow concealed carry have a zero tolerance for alcohol use while armed in public. Perhaps that should extend to marijuana use. As well as other narcotics or recreational drugs.
    Personally, I couldn’t care less what someone chooses to smoke, drink, ingest, or inject. Pick your poison.
    No law ever written is going to prevent anyone from doing as they choose. Whether that be use of drugs or alcohol, committing other self inflicted problems by doing something stupid, or committing whatever crimes. Do the deed and suffer the consequences. Or going the other way, reap the rewards.

  24. Yeah, don’t do pot. Do the real drugs like hunter biden does. That make you responsible and allowed to buy a gun.

  25. Marijuana users aren’t law abiding,,,????,,,, Federally No, but there are a few states where they are Law Abiding Citizens.
    Responsible, for me to make a judgement on that statement I would need your definition of what you think is responsible/irresponsible.

  26. I Canonly speak for nthew UK but Policxe ROADSIDE testing for ALCOHOl,Cannabis[marajuana] and Cocaine use are now carried out and like alcohol exceeding the proscribed limits will get you banned for an average of TWO YEARS. The use of a MOBILE PHONE whilst driving wilkl get you a MANDATORY 3GB200.00 fine and 6 ‘points’ on your ,licence.12 ‘points’ on your license can lead to a driving ban for at least 6 months and a considerable fine.
    I suspect that it has not been introduced in the USA because it would,or could, take half of the opulation off the roads in a couple of months – that what comes of legalising ‘pot’.

    In the UK all such offences would also be scrutinised when applying for any type of firearms license and are a metterb of a permanent Police record

Comments are closed.