This revised standard [Bruen] has changed the way courts have viewed challenges to the prohibition on cannabis users owning guns in the last few years. Several recent cases have challenged this regulation, questioning whether it can still stand under the revised “history and tradition” standard of Bruen. The result has been that various US Circuit Courts of Appeals have ruled very differently on similar cases, creating a patchwork of judicial precedent where a cannabis user’s ability to own a gun largely depends on where a person resides. While none of these rulings have found 18 U.S.C. §922 (g)(3) unconstitutional, they have differed in the standard that the government must meet to restrict gun ownership. …
The lack of uniformity demonstrated in these cases is an issue for the fairness and consistency of the legal system. When such “circuit splits” arise, the US Supreme Court will often take the case(s) to remedy these inconsistencies and make a single authoritative ruling that is applicable nationwide. The Supreme Court will hold its long conference the week of September 29th, prior to the court’s new term beginning on October 7, 2025. During this time, they will review and decide which cases currently pending before them to hear oral arguments (also known as “granting certiorari”). It is likely, though not guaranteed, that in this year’s long conference that the court may grant certiorari to one or more cannabis gun rights cases to settle this ongoing dispute on the ability of the federal government to restrict the gun rights of cannabis users.
— Heather Trela in Circuit Breaker—Judicial Disconnect on Disarming Cannabis Users
The pot heads have always supported gun control. That is a historical fact. Have they changed?
Well. Who are they voting for?
The anti-civil rights governors in Massachusetts Colorado and New Jersey.
My local gun store has a sign stating “If you smell like weed we will refuse service to you.”
Just like you will be refused service if you smell like alcohol.
The real question is , can you bring it upon yourself to have sobriety, long enough to purchase a firearm?
Hi seriously doubt it. That requires personal responsibility.
The “pot heads”? Who exactly is a “pot head”? Are you the arbiter who decrees who everyone is? Who’s a “liquor head”? Who do they vote for? How about the “sugar heads”? Or the “caffeine heads”? The “us heads”? The “them heads”?
It gets so confusing Chris T- please remind us who we’re supposed to be, who we’re supposed to vote for. and exactly how we’re supposed to act. I’d be mortified to find out that I’d behaved in a way that’s unacceptable to you…
If you take offense to being called a “pot head” you might just be a “pot head.”
Stoners and drunks need to figure out what it is they’re missing in life and stop putting the rest of us at risk trying to self-medicating their insecurities away.
Since widespread legalization more and more people are stoned all day, everyday. Nearly everyone would agree that daily drinking is a problem. Why should daily stoning be any different?
It’s sad, it’s pathetic and it puts everyone at risk.
Wanna get high or loaded? Great. Do it at home and stay home.
I watched someone go to some kind of pot festival. He went around asking people if they thought pot was addictive. Most of them said no. His follow up question was how often do you smoke? The answer was always everyday. It isn’t addictive, it’s just something I do EVERY DAY.
pothead is a slang term for a person who frequently smokes marijuana, meaning a continual chronic user (an addict, yes, people can get addicted to pot). Now you know what a ‘pot head’ is – the pot use equivalent of being an alcoholic (i.e. addicted to alcohol). Chris is right though, traditionally continual chronic users of pot (i.e. ‘potheads’) have been pro gun-control because most times they are left wing liberal, and the ‘commercial’ and ‘private’ pot growing ‘industry’ (i.e. as a business) mostly has been traditionally pro gun-control for the public but also has a ‘hypocrisy’ for their own gun possession (they like to have their own guns sometimes, but don’t want you to have one) because the ‘industry’ is mainly dominated by left-wing liberals.
Notice the question on the 4473…”Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug or any other controlled substance?” —see the part “…or addicted to, marijuana …”.
Pot is still illegal federally, so the part of the question for “Are you an unlawful user of…” would still be disqualifying because if you used pot, even medically and even if its legal in your state medically or recreation-ally, its still illegal federally so if you use pot you are “an unlawful user of … marijuana…” for purposes of gun purchase.
The pot heads see making weed legal and 2A civil rights as being of equal value.
So yes. Vote for Murphy in New Jersey. Because he made pot legal.
It’s no big deal that Murphy is anti 2A. Having made weed legal that is equally important.
You can always wait for some time in the future to get your 2A civil rights back.
So Vote for Murphy. And the pot heads put him over the top in a very close race.
Trump just made a pro c-a-n-n-a-b-i-d-i-o-l (C-B-D) post on Truth Social.
The Pot head said to the waitress, I had too much liquor last night and need some caffeine with some sugar so that I’ll know which one of them heads us heads should vote for when the polls open. Some people just want to get ahead and others are a behind. So many heads.
Pot heads want free stuff from the government. “Free” medical marijuana. They are s.o-ci.a.l-is.t pr.ogr.es.siv.e in their p0l:it.ic@l 0ri.e.nt@ tion.
They want to be able to urinate and defecate in public. Without the fear of being arrested. They want to be able to steal in order to pay for their drugs. And not worry about being arrested.
I find it amusing that the 2A crowd often stereotypes those of us who don’t fit their idea of “pro-2A” citizens. I “use” in the same way many adults have a drink or two in the evenings, I vote VERY conservative, and am a productive and active member of society. I also don’t mind the idea of it being legal with the understanding that there should be serious consequences for misuse.
That being said, I also dislike “pot heads”, i.e. those whose lives REVOLVE around it.
A lot of pro gun folks understand freedom less than miner49er does.
“Just make it legal and all the crime will go away.”
“And there will be no need for the [black] drug dealers to carry guns.”
“Just make it legal and all the crime will go away.”
This is a logical and factual fallacy. Its like saying ‘just make water floods legal and all floods will go away.’
Here’s the truth: any personal indulgence substance that can chemically alter a person’s ‘behavior or mood or function’ (yes i know this is very generic to say it this way, but its a very broad spectrum of the effects of such substances)…will always have crime attached to it in some aspect no matter it being legal.
For examples; cigarettes are legal products yet there is a hugh criminal black market in cigarettes a day the same for alcohol beverages. There is hugh black market and counterfeiting crime for ‘prescription drugs’ despite these being legal (although you do need a prescription). There is a hugh amount of theft crime, including with violence, to steal what of these substances people or businesses have. The list is endless of the amount and types of crime involved with such legal substances.
correction for : ‘.. hugh criminal black market in cigarettes a day the same for alcohol beverages.’
should have been…
‘…hugh criminal black market in cigarettes and the same for alcohol beverages. …’