Trump Administration Argues to SCOTUS in favor of stripping away 2A Rights of Marijuana Users

Old Jalopy · Tuesday at 6:07 AM

Sorry, but I'm ok with this. It pisses me off to no end drug users can get high as a kite legally on weed here, but I need permission to buy ammo and need a license for long guns. Doesn't get much more ass backwards than that.
I hope this goes through.

Celt · Tuesday at 6:27 AM

Old Jalopy said:
Sorry, but I'm ok with this. It pisses me off to no end drug users can get high as a kite legally on weed here, but I need permission to buy ammo and need a license for long guns. Doesn't get much more ass backwards than that.
I hope this goes through.

What are you ok with, Trump arguing to strip 2a rights from people or the case arguing they have the same right as someone who drinks alcohol or smokes cigarettes?

Personally, I dont smoke anything and cant stand the smell of it, but i see it as no different than alcohol.

togmaster · Tuesday at 7:14 AM

First weed then alcohol then aspirin??? How about NO.

FP1201 · Tuesday at 7:21 AM

I've a couple thoughts: the Form 4473 which became part of the requirements of being a FFL starting in 1968 was in the height of "Reefer Madness" Legislation, so it should come as no surprise it was added as a disqualifier...Surprisingly the question of drunkenness and habitual alcohol use was omitted, but we'd already been down the Alcohol Prohibition road and back, not to mention alcohol was still heavily in use and people didn't get too excited by it.

Perhaps it's just me, but I want to believe there's a manipulative pattern used by Trump and his Administration of appearing to be supportive of the Laws and having his AG's fight for them in Court, maybe just to make it seem like they put up a good fight for the government when the fight was already predetermined who was going to win....yea, we know it's wrong, but we've got to lose a little at a time to keep the train on the tracks.

I had a College Professor lecture us on how "Freedom" had to be gradually introduced else it would fail. That's one of the problems with people that come here from other parts of the World, especially repressive ones: "It's a Free Country, I can do what ever I want" well, not exactly.
Thinking of the NFA, look at the defensiveness by by those that could take it hard one direction or the other...What do you think could, would happen if tomorrow morning it was announced that you could drill out all the third holes you want and nobody can or will say a word about it.

Celt · Tuesday at 7:46 AM

FP1201 said:
.
Thinking of the NFA, look at the defensiveness by by those that could take it hard one direction or the other...What do you think could, would happen if tomorrow morning it was announced that you could drill out all the third holes you want and nobody can or will say a word about it.

Whats wrong with that? What would happen is most lawful gun owners would try it out and realize ammo is too expensive to use it much. Gang bangers already use it so no change there.

fresch · Tuesday at 7:54 AM

I'm still trying to find who owns that big bag of coke that was left in the most secured white house, or perhaps it ain't so secure.

FP1201 · Tuesday at 8:01 AM

Celt said:
Whats wrong with that? What would happen is most lawful gun owners would try it out and realize ammo is too expensive to use it much. Gang bangers already use it so no change there.

Honestly, do we know what's wrong or conversely right about it? Sure, I'd like the Right and Ability to own a Machinegun without government oversight or approval, and yes, ever are the "Gang Banger's" and wanna-be Thugs ARE exploiting holes they've found in the system, someone always does when there's money to be made...I wonder how many arrested with "switches" have received the penalty of "up to ten years in Prison and or a $10,000. fine"? (might be higher now) NYS doesn't want to be bothered about criminals that have no assets, and the Fed is well, the Feds...They want convictions in Big Fish so they can use those prosecutions as political capital in the next election.

We mostly are Lawful Gun Owners, however there's always one that fucks it up for the the rest of us...."Why we can't have nice things."
Looking at the prices for ammunition, I just can't figure out WTF happened: OK, things went crazy during covid and in the past when demand from artificial or actual scarcity drove prices up, increases in material costs all add to it, but Plants were built, factories (even home built) went into multi-shift production and there's more ammunition in more flavors available today that the last fifty years, yet a Box of 30'06 "On Sale" is fifty bucks or more....wtf is up with that? Personally I think it's by design and not market conditions.

Old Jalopy · Tuesday at 8:34 AM

Celt said:
What are you ok with, Trump arguing to strip 2a rights from people or the case arguing they have the same right as someone who drinks alcohol or smokes cigarettes?

Personally, I dont smoke anything and cant stand the smell of it, but i see it as no different than alcohol.

So, you feel having to get permission to buy ammo is OK? You think that's not stripping your rights? Weed is not a God dammed right! It's a privilege, and still illegal in most states. It was made legal here by the very people stripping your rights to own a gun and buy ammo. But hey, if you're OK with having our rights yanked away that are protected by the CONSTITUTION, in favor of people getting high, whatever. Liberals are the ones who made pot legal, and I do not support that decision when I have to go beg them to exercise my RIGHTS. I can't even argue or debate this anymore because people just don't get it.

FP1201 · Tuesday at 8:50 AM

Old Jalopy said:
So, you feel having to get permission to buy ammo is OK? You think that's not stripping your rights? Weed is not a God dammed right! It's a privilege, and still illegal in most states. It was made legal here by the very people stripping your rights to own a gun and buy ammo. But hey, if you're OK with having our rights yanked away that are protected by the CONSTITUTION, in favor of people getting high, whatever. Liberals are the ones who made pot legal, and I do not support that decision when I have to go beg them to exercise my RIGHTS. I can't even argue or debate this anymore because people just don't get it.

Weed is not an enumerated Right and therefor reserved for the Citizens or States.
Traveling on a Roadway is your Right unless it's a Roadway unsuitable for pedestrian, but it's not your Right to operate a Motor Vehicle upon it without following Laws established by governments.
Ammunition BGC are a work-around implemented by Governments under the guise of Public Safety, but it's really just a defacto way to identify who's got a gun should they decide to confiscate or even raid your Home...it's no mistake that check sheet demands more information than a NICS Check, including the State Portion.

The real issue here is determining what really constitutes a "Habitual User" because it's totally subjective. Marijuana is the focal point, but any ruling would have to include any mind or mood altering substances.
Alieto's questioning of the AG makes her reach for answers and definitions....their verbal arguments can be heard on-line with a simple search.

Celt · Tuesday at 8:57 AM

FP1201 said:
Honestly, do we know what's wrong or conversely right about it? Sure, I'd like the Right and Ability to own a Machinegun without government oversight or approval, and yes, ever are the "Gang Banger's" and wanna-be Thugs ARE exploiting holes they've found in the system, someone always does when there's money to be made...I wonder how many arrested with "switches" have received the penalty of "up to ten years in Prison and or a $10,000. fine"? (might be higher now) NYS doesn't want to be bothered about criminals that have no assets, and the Fed is well, the Feds...They want convictions in Big Fish so they can use those prosecutions as political capital in the next election.

We mostly are Lawful Gun Owners, however there's always one that fucks it up for the the rest of us...."Why we can't have nice things."
Looking at the prices for ammunition, I just can't figure out WTF happened: OK, things went crazy during covid and in the past when demand from artificial or actual scarcity drove prices up, increases in material costs all add to it, but Plants were built, factories (even home built) went into multi-shift production and there's more ammunition in more flavors available today that the last fifty years, yet a Box of 30'06 "On Sale" is fifty bucks or more....wtf is up with that? Personally I think it's by design and not market conditions.

Was just talking to a buddy about this yesterday. We were reminiscing about buying 556 for under .25 per round, 9mm for .12 per round. What a shame, and its definitely by design. Prices went up when obozo got into office, then sky rocketed after sandy hook. As you mentioned covid impacted supply which drove up prices again, and with the laws of supply and demand, manufacturers havent dropped prices much since people are willing to pay.

But like everything, prices go up. 10 years ago i could get an egg sandwich and coffee for $5, now its $11. I wish my salary doubled as much as the cost of everything else.

MHoncho · Tuesday at 9:15 AM

FP1201 said:
Perhaps it's just me, but I want to believe there's a manipulative pattern used by Trump and his Administration of appearing to be supportive of the Laws and having his AG's fight for them in Court, maybe just to make it seem like they put up a good fight for the government when the fight was already predetermined who was going to win....yea, we know it's wrong, but we've got to lose a little at a time to keep the train on the tracks.

I have always believed it is like the WWE... outcome is predetermined, everyone puts a show on when outward facing, yet goes to the same events behind the scenese and 'gets along'. This is not true across every situation but generally, i believed this until this current admin but i still see glimpses of it.

When I see something that i cannot comprehend i just hear the gladiator screaming "are you not entertained?"

Old Jalopy · Tuesday at 9:32 AM

FP1201 said:
Weed is not an enumerated Right and therefor reserved for the Citizens or States.
Traveling on a Roadway is your Right unless it's a Roadway unsuitable for pedestrian, but it's not your Right to operate a Motor Vehicle upon it without following Laws established by governments.
Ammunition BGC are a work-around implemented by Governments under the guise of Public Safety, but it's really just a defacto way to identify who's got a gun should they decide to confiscate or even raid your Home...it's no mistake that check sheet demands more information than a NICS Check, including the State Portion.

The real issue here is determining what really constitutes a "Habitual User" because it's totally subjective. Marijuana is the focal point, but any ruling would have to include any mind or mood altering substances.
Alieto's questioning of the AG makes her reach for answers and definitions....their verbal arguments can be heard on-line with a simple search.

Habitual is as open to interpretation, the same as the SAF Act is. Look how well that's been going for 13 years.

I simply do not now, or ever will, support a once illegal drug being made legal while those same people who made the drug legal rip my gun rights away. I think my feeling that way is called being Pro 2A.

It's sort of funny how so many people are "OMG! OMG! Trump forever! He's da MAN!" ETC... But now that he wants something like this, he's a bad guy. LOL! SMH

But it doesn't matter what myself or anyone like me thinks anyway................................

Celt · Tuesday at 9:35 AM

Old Jalopy said:
So, you feel having to get permission to buy ammo is OK? You think that's not stripping your rights? Weed is not a God dammed right! It's a privilege, and still illegal in most states. It was made legal here by the very people stripping your rights to own a gun and buy ammo. But hey, if you're OK with having our rights yanked away that are protected by the CONSTITUTION, in favor of people getting high, whatever. Liberals are the ones who made pot legal, and I do not support that decision when I have to go beg them to exercise my RIGHTS. I can't even argue or debate this anymore because people just don't get it.

Fuck no! Not sure where you would get that idea. I dont agree with permitting schemes for firearms, ammo bgcs, or any infringements on the 2a.

Seems like you ok restricting other peoples freedoms because "your" freedoms are resteicted. Im not about restricting any freedoms.

Old Jalopy · Tuesday at 9:49 AM

Celt said:
Fuck no! Not sure where you would get that idea. I dont agree with permitting schemes for firearms, ammo bgcs, or any infringements on the 2a.

Seems like you ok restricting other peoples freedoms because "your" freedoms are resteicted. Im not about restricting any freedoms.

Nope. Nice try to spit it though. I stated my feelings about rights. If people having the freedom to get high means more than our, OUR, Right To Bear Arms, I dont know how to help them. But, again, I don't support it. I don't care what people do, as long as what they do doesn't fuck up my God Given Rights. I'd like to know how many of these mass shooters were sober or under the influence of something when they committed the crime. Odd how that never gets mentioned.

OwnTheRide · Tuesday at 10:02 AM

Old Jalopy said:
I simply do not now, or ever will, support a once illegal drug being made legal while those same people who made the drug legal rip my gun rights away.

So, then, you are opposed to alcohol being made legal? It is a drug, it was once illegal, and it was made legal by the same people who ripped many of your gun rights away.

You seem to be hung up on marijuana, not realizing or intentionally disregarding the fact that all of the same arguments you are making can be applied equally to alcohol. If you're a teetotaler, then maybe I can give you credit for being consistent. But if you're not also in support of stripping the 2A rights away from anyone who has taken a sip of alcohol in the past year, then any credit for consistency is out the window as well.

Celt · Tuesday at 10:21 AM

Old Jalopy said:
Nope. Nice try to spit it though. I stated my feelings about rights. If people having the freedom to get high means more than our, OUR, Right To Bear Arms, I dont know how to help them. But, again, I don't support it. I don't care what people do, as long as what they do doesn't fuck up my God Given Rights. I'd like to know how many of these mass shooters were sober or under the influence of something when they committed the crime. Odd how that never gets mentioned.

Lol, who said smoking weed means more than the 2a?? You are deluded man.

Weed is a plant that grows in the ground, people were smoking it before guns were ever made. It was "legal" before it was "illegal".

Again, I dont smoke weed, but I dont care if people do. If they are irresponsible and hurt people while doing it then punish them accordingly, just like anything else.

I just find your hypocrisy to be small minded. Your ok with denying freedom to someone else if it doesnt effect you, but dont want your freedoms to be denied by someone else. You argue that there is no constitutional right to smoke weed, i argue that there is no need for it to be a right to be considered a freedom.

Old Jalopy · Tuesday at 10:45 AM

I'm just going to agree to disagree. I see no valid point defending my thoughts on the topic. Better things to do with my life than argue about pot.

Saltwater60 · Tuesday at 10:46 AM

Celt said:
Lol, who said smoking weed means more than the 2a?? You are deluded man.

Weed is a plant that grows in the ground, people were smoking it before guns were ever made. It was "legal" before it was "illegal".

Again, I dont smoke weed, but I dont care if people do. If they are irresponsible and hurt people while doing it then punish them accordingly, just like anything else.

I just find your hypocrisy to be small minded. Your ok with denying freedom to someone else if it doesnt effect you, but dont want your freedoms to be denied by someone else. You argue that there is no constitutional right to smoke weed, i argue that there is no need for it to be a right to be considered a freedom.

I think what he means is the politicians and lawmakers are betting on people choosing to smoke weed over having guns. I’ve said this in the past and agree with him. Many will choose smoking weed over possessing guns and this limits their rights. I think there are many that do make this choice. Don’t forget for an ID check they scan your license and they know who you are. That’s not a stretch to think they will use that data one day to find who does both. The left employs many lines of deterrents for us to not want to buy or own guns. Pistol permits and classes are some of them.

Celt · Tuesday at 11:13 AM

Saltwater60 said:
I think what he means is the politicians and lawmakers are betting on people choosing to smoke weed over having guns. I’ve said this in the past and agree with him. Many will choose smoking weed over possessing guns and this limits their rights. I think there are many that do make this choice. Don’t forget for an ID check they scan your license and they know who you are. That’s not a stretch to think they will use that data one day to find who does both. The left employs many lines of deterrents for us to not want to buy or own guns. Pistol permits and classes are some of them.

I can understand that point, I can even understand not wanting to support a democrat bill because they are largely responsible for destroying the 2a, but I dont see how that gets us more freedoms back. If we allow "the other side" to bait us into more restrictions on freedom then we are working at 2x the speed at losing freedom altogether.

Im looking at "freedoms" as a principle, and less so what freedom it is specifically.

MHoncho · Tuesday at 11:17 AM

unpopular question... and just asking to have my ass handed to me, but since when was 2A a God-given right?

Being a religious person myself, not sure how these are God-given. They are constitutional, but even our forefathers had the authority to dictate God's word; even though King James got away with it, it does not mean they could.

I am sure there are plenty of verses we can all find discussing protection, etc., etc., and we can find the same to the alternative. Perhaps i am taking the statement "God-given right" too literally.

Just because someone has a medical marijuana card should not disqualify them from a constitutional right. I am stuck on state laws can restrict beyond federal, but the reverse is not true (standard capacity mags illegal, ammo background checks, etc., but weed legal means no gun access)

if someone is charged with an illegal crime, address their access according to the law. if they are not doing someting illegal and it is not impacting others negatively, leave them alone. that is the nature of conservatism: less oversight, less baby sitting.

Beerman · Tuesday at 11:18 AM

OwnTheRide said:
So, then, you are opposed to alcohol being made legal? It is a drug, it was once illegal, and it was made legal by the same people who ripped many of your gun rights away.

You seem to be hung up on marijuana, not realizing or intentionally disregarding the fact that all of the same arguments you are making can be applied equally to alcohol. If you're a teetotaler, then maybe I can give you credit for being consistent. But if you're not also in support of stripping the 2A rights away from anyone who has taken a sip of alcohol in the past year, then any credit for consistency is out the window as well.

Alcohol is a gift from God. Marijuana is the Devil’s lettuce. Just sayin. :beer:

and

Celt · Tuesday at 11:24 AM

MHoncho said:
unpopular question... and just asking to have my ass handed to me, but since when was 2A a God-given right?

Being a religious person myself, not sure how these are God-given. They are constitutional, but even our forefathers had the authority to dictate God's word; even though King James got away with it, it does not mean they could.

I am sure there are plenty of verses we can all find discussing protection, etc., etc., and we can find the same to the alternative. Perhaps i am taking the statement "God-given right" too literally.

Just because someone has a medical marijuana card should not disqualify them from a constitutional right. I am stuck on state laws can restrict beyond federal, but the reverse is not true (standard capacity mags illegal, ammo background checks, etc., but weed legal means no gun access)

if someone is charged with an illegal crime, address their access according to the law. if they are not doing someting illegal and it is not impacting others negatively, leave them alone. that is the nature of conservatism: less oversight, less baby sitting.

When people say God given, what they mean that the right to self defense (with the best tools available) is a right by birth, or by merely existing. Its a natural right, like breathing, and certainly not given by any man or govt.

The Bill of Rights and the Constitution do not give us any rights, its a list of specific rules the GOV has to follow. Those rights were enumerated because experience had shown the founders that those rights are the first ones that tyrants take away to control the population.

Bigfoot · Tuesday at 11:36 AM

Beerman said:
Alcohol is a gift from God. Marijuana is the Devil’s lettuce. Just sayin.

I'll just leave this here...

"Research consistently indicates that alcohol makes a person significantly more aggressive than marijuana. Alcohol is heavily linked to violence, domestic abuse, and increased impulsive, risky behavior. Conversely, marijuana is generally associated with calming effects, and studies often show it decreases, rather than increases, the likelihood of violence during intoxication."

Conclusion: Alcohol is considered far more likely to contribute to violent, aggressive, and criminal behavior than marijuana.

Cavalry · Tuesday at 11:49 AM

Gorsuch has some interesting comments regarding the founding fathers and habitual alcohol use.

fresch · Tuesday at 12:03 PM

The founders didn't care about your health, it is yours to take care of. They were drinking, doing coke, smoking weed, tobacco, and any other thing you can think of. Some were distillers, etc. "Mad as a hatter" yet you could still buy hats with out a back ground check.
You were responsible for your actions, as they could very well shoot you, run you through with any sharp pointy thing, knife, saber, sword, lance. Hang you etc., freedom isn't free there are consequences for your actions.

SonOfSun · Tuesday at 12:26 PM

togmaster said:
First weed then alcohol then aspirin??? How about NO.

That's my take as well. I don't use the stuff, but it opens that can of worms. I think it sets a bad precedent on arbitrary whims impacting rights so I'm not a fan of it.

FP1201 · Tuesday at 12:43 PM

fresch said:
The founders didn't care about your health, it is yours to take care of. They were drinking, doing coke, smoking weed, tobacco, and any other thing you can think of. Some were distillers, etc. "Mad as a hatter" yet you could still buy hats with out a back ground check.
You were responsible for your actions, as they could very well shoot you, run you through with any sharp pointy thing, knife, saber, sword, lance. Hang you etc., freedom isn't free there are consequences for your actions.

In bold lies the answer to the question of government controlling as many aspects of you life as they can.
Die from drinking anti-freeze? yea, well the maker didn't put "not for human consumption" so we'll pay Darwin & Darwin Attorneys a 10 million Dollar Settlement and place warning labels on everything going forward....Then we have Kunta-Kenty James suing a Manufacturer because they put instructions and a warning on the Package.
The motherfuckers of the Democrat Party and RINO Republicans are cock sure they know better what's best for you and their pockets so they try to legislate morality, intelligence, and behavior, but that only leads to "what could possibly go wrong."

Saltwater60 · Tuesday at 2:49 PM

Celt said:
I can understand that point, I can even understand not wanting to support a democrat bill because they are largely responsible for destroying the 2a, but I dont see how that gets us more freedoms back. If we allow "the other side" to bait us into more restrictions on freedom then we are working at 2x the speed at losing freedom altogether.

Im looking at "freedoms" as a principle, and less so what freedom it is specifically.

Agreed. I’m not saying we should have more restrictions but I think the democrats are forcing people into no win situations for their preferences.

Trump Administration Argues to SCOTUS in favor of stripping away 2A Rights of Marijuana Users

.40 S&W

.45 acp

.450/400 Nitro Ex

.450/400 Nitro Ex

.338 Win Mag

.450/400 Nitro Ex

.338 Win Mag

.338 Win Mag

.45 acp

.338 Win Mag

.450/400 Nitro Ex

.38 Special

.45 acp

.450/400 Nitro Ex

.45 acp

.223 Rem

.40 S&W

.450/400 Nitro Ex

.45 acp

20×102mm Vulcan

.450/400 Nitro Ex

.38 Special

6.5 Creedmoor

.450/400 Nitro Ex

.475 A&M Magnum

.338 Win Mag

.338 Win Mag

.308 Win

.338 Win Mag

20×102mm Vulcan