Apropos of not much, but life experience tells me that people who consume alcohol are far more concerning gun owners than those that smoke weed.
vanderZwan 2 hours ago [-]
US drug policy is more "which population demographic uses it?" based than anything else.
asdff 2 hours ago [-]
Hence why this is now changing. Every demographic smokes weed now. It is no longer a good proxy to hamstring blacks, browns, and leftists.
CGMthrowaway 56 minutes ago [-]
If you said people who carry firearms when drunk, I might be inclined to agree.
But if you mean more generally people who drink, vs. people who smoke weed, I would expect to find the type of people who use illegal drugs (even weed) would be far more concerning on average.
exabrial 2 hours ago [-]
Unbelievable that a right like firearm ownership was ever gated like this.
asdff 2 hours ago [-]
It isn't that unbelievable. This came in direct response to the Black Panthers armed protest in Sacramento in 1967. The law came in 1968. You have to remember that power then, and still now in a lot of ways, was racist.
m3047 1 hours ago [-]
Ah, the 1960s.
AndrewKemendo 3 hours ago [-]
I know for a fact in Virginia you were explicitly told when getting your medical cannabis certificate from a doctor that you would then be ineligible for a concealed carry license.
mothballed 3 hours ago [-]
The 4473 still hasn't changed, so it still appears to be a felony to buy a gun from an FFL if you use recreational marijuana, since it would require lying on the form to get it approved.
dcrazy 2 hours ago [-]
The Supreme Court doesn’t have the power or the need to rewrite the form. Either the Executive rewrites the form to comply with this ruling, Congress passes a law ordering the Executive to rewrite the form, or someone answers the form truthfully, gets denied, and then sues the ATF. Depending on how the case is filed and relevant case law, the court can order the ATF to issue a permit to the plaintiff, or order the ATF to stop denying permits to anyone who is in a similar situation to the plaintiff. (The recent rulings about nationwide injunctions are directly relevant to this discussion.)
rolph 32 minutes ago [-]
- are you an unlawful user of or addicted to, [list,x]
so user of [x] disqualifies, or seemingly addiction to [x] no usage required will also disqualify
if federally you are a lawful medical recipient, you could qualify, it might be grey, as the combination of firearm and medical marijuana might become illegal use even with a prescription.
mothballed 9 minutes ago [-]
not legal advice but the ATF appears to already be considering medical marijuana lawful use after the rescheduling, and even filed a rule change to exempt it from that question. The comments period recently closed, I think the form will probably change in less than a year. But there's no expectation yet it will be changed to include recreational marijuana.
I suspect dcrazy is right, someone will have to sue and wait god knows how long for it to wind through the courts, before it will change for recreational.
Rendered at 19:59:53 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
But if you mean more generally people who drink, vs. people who smoke weed, I would expect to find the type of people who use illegal drugs (even weed) would be far more concerning on average.
so user of [x] disqualifies, or seemingly addiction to [x] no usage required will also disqualify
if federally you are a lawful medical recipient, you could qualify, it might be grey, as the combination of firearm and medical marijuana might become illegal use even with a prescription.
I suspect dcrazy is right, someone will have to sue and wait god knows how long for it to wind through the courts, before it will change for recreational.