Even while more and more States legalize the use of cannabis for both medical and recreational use, the Deep State and the FedState nannies continue to bauk. Among other things, the feds continue to argue that people who use marijuana must be prohibited from exercising their God-given rights.
Based on the people of the States, and on polls and surveys, it very much seems that the feds – the corrupt DOJ, corrupt FBI, and senile White House – seem to again be ignoring the very “democracy” that they claim to worship. (Not that we here at TPOL think much of “democracy” or government.)
Rob Morse, between dealing with flooding and other issues, provides some information about this situation:
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is holding firm on its stance that medical marijuana users should not allowed to own a gun, citing safety risks. In a recent filing, federal attorneys argued that the ban on gun ownership for cannabis users is constitutional and should remain in place.
This aligns with federal regulations barring gun access for individuals considered potentially dangerous, such as those who are mentally ill or under the influence, reported Marijuana Moment. This filing responds to a lawsuit by Robert Greene, the District Attorney of Warren County, Pennsylvania, who is a registered medical marijuana patient. Along with the Second Amendment Foundation, Greene filed suit against the DOJ, Attorney General Merrick Garland and other federal agencies, arguing that the ban infringes on his right to bear arms for self-defense.
The DOJ’s filing, submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, seeks to dismiss Greene’s suit. “Marijuana’s physical and mental effects impair a person’s judgment, including judgment about whether to use firearms,” it says. The next step for Robert Greene’s case involves a federal court decision on his request for a preliminary injunction against the law.
The US Fifth Circuit Court that covers Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi already ruled that cannabis users cannot be barred from owning firearms. This is wonderful news for gun owners. If they win in Pennsylvania, then medical cannabis users get their rights back. If the district court in Pennsylvania says that marijuana users have no rights, then that forms a circuit split where two different district courts have opposing rulings. The next appeal would be to the US Supreme Court to resolve the difference.
Rob goes on:
The issue of marijuana is important in another way. The US DOJ says you can’t own a gun if you have used drugs. The larger issue is when are you a prohibited person. The broadest interpretation is that we are barred from gun ownership if we have ever used drugs to any extent. The narrowest interpretation is that we could carry a firearm while using drugs or alcohol, but we can’t use the gun while intoxicated. That interpretation draws from a strong historical record. We’re allowed to own a car if we have alcohol in our home. We are allowed to have car keys in our pocket when we are intoxicated but we are not allowed to operate a car on public roads when we’re drunk. Likewise, we should be able to carry a gun, but not use it. Some states treat gun ownership and intoxication the same way they treat car ownership. This issue will come before the Ohio court this year. The law isn’t done with this issue yet.
Rob makes a point that many advocates for both our right to keep and bear arms and our right (under the Bill of Rights if not explicitly listed) to decide for ourselves what medical care we can seek and have. Let us elaborate on that:
The government does not seek to deny freedom of speech to a person convicted of lying or perjury. Nor does the government take away the right of free speech from felons in general. And certainly not from someone accused of a felony!
The government does not prohibit people who drink alcohol – even those who drink so much that they become drunk – from owning (and generally not from carrying) firearms. Nor are (to our knowledge) people who are legally prescribed narcotics (or other drugs which have mental/emotional impacts) denied the right to keep and bear arms. (Or the rights of free speech, assembly, and worship!)
If a court were to require that a man convicted of domestic violence be forbidden from ever being married or having an intimate relationship for a period of time or life? Oh, dear, would the screams of “cruel and unusual punishment” be loud! We don’t even accept the idea of a convicted rapist being castrated!
Indeed, the blanket denial of the right to keep and bear arms for virtually every sort of felony (and many misdemeanors and even petty offenses) seems to deny the fundamental right of self-defense. Just because a person is convicted of fraud, or theft, or drunk driving does not mean they no long have a right to defend themselves against aggression. Or does it?
What do you think, dear reader?
An afterword: we here at TPOL neither imbibe nor suggest the imbibing of recreational drugs, including pot and alcohol (and for that matter, tobacco). But we believe that is, and should be, a matter of personal choice without coercion or threat of punishment – except when such use results in harm to others. Direct harm, not claims of “increased insurance rates” and “increased medical costs” and other such excuses for tyranny.
About TPOL Nathan
Follower of Christ Jesus (a christian), Pahasapan (resident of the Black Hills), Westerner, Lover of Liberty, Free-Market Anarchist, Engineer, Army Officer, Husband, Father, Historian, Writer, Evangelist. Successor to Lady Susan (Mama Liberty) at TPOL.
The Price of Liberty 
Pot and guns
Even while more and more States legalize the use of cannabis for both medical and recreational use, the Deep State and the FedState nannies continue to bauk. Among other things, the feds continue to argue that people who use marijuana must be prohibited from exercising their God-given rights.
Based on the people of the States, and on polls and surveys, it very much seems that the feds – the corrupt DOJ, corrupt FBI, and senile White House – seem to again be ignoring the very “democracy” that they claim to worship. (Not that we here at TPOL think much of “democracy” or government.)
Rob Morse, between dealing with flooding and other issues, provides some information about this situation:
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is holding firm on its stance that medical marijuana users should not allowed to own a gun, citing safety risks. In a recent filing, federal attorneys argued that the ban on gun ownership for cannabis users is constitutional and should remain in place.
This aligns with federal regulations barring gun access for individuals considered potentially dangerous, such as those who are mentally ill or under the influence, reported Marijuana Moment. This filing responds to a lawsuit by Robert Greene, the District Attorney of Warren County, Pennsylvania, who is a registered medical marijuana patient. Along with the Second Amendment Foundation, Greene filed suit against the DOJ, Attorney General Merrick Garland and other federal agencies, arguing that the ban infringes on his right to bear arms for self-defense.
The DOJ’s filing, submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, seeks to dismiss Greene’s suit. “Marijuana’s physical and mental effects impair a person’s judgment, including judgment about whether to use firearms,” it says. The next step for Robert Greene’s case involves a federal court decision on his request for a preliminary injunction against the law.
The US Fifth Circuit Court that covers Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi already ruled that cannabis users cannot be barred from owning firearms. This is wonderful news for gun owners. If they win in Pennsylvania, then medical cannabis users get their rights back. If the district court in Pennsylvania says that marijuana users have no rights, then that forms a circuit split where two different district courts have opposing rulings. The next appeal would be to the US Supreme Court to resolve the difference.
Rob goes on:
The issue of marijuana is important in another way. The US DOJ says you can’t own a gun if you have used drugs. The larger issue is when are you a prohibited person. The broadest interpretation is that we are barred from gun ownership if we have ever used drugs to any extent. The narrowest interpretation is that we could carry a firearm while using drugs or alcohol, but we can’t use the gun while intoxicated. That interpretation draws from a strong historical record. We’re allowed to own a car if we have alcohol in our home. We are allowed to have car keys in our pocket when we are intoxicated but we are not allowed to operate a car on public roads when we’re drunk. Likewise, we should be able to carry a gun, but not use it. Some states treat gun ownership and intoxication the same way they treat car ownership. This issue will come before the Ohio court this year. The law isn’t done with this issue yet.
Rob makes a point that many advocates for both our right to keep and bear arms and our right (under the Bill of Rights if not explicitly listed) to decide for ourselves what medical care we can seek and have. Let us elaborate on that:
The government does not seek to deny freedom of speech to a person convicted of lying or perjury. Nor does the government take away the right of free speech from felons in general. And certainly not from someone accused of a felony!
The government does not prohibit people who drink alcohol – even those who drink so much that they become drunk – from owning (and generally not from carrying) firearms. Nor are (to our knowledge) people who are legally prescribed narcotics (or other drugs which have mental/emotional impacts) denied the right to keep and bear arms. (Or the rights of free speech, assembly, and worship!)
If a court were to require that a man convicted of domestic violence be forbidden from ever being married or having an intimate relationship for a period of time or life? Oh, dear, would the screams of “cruel and unusual punishment” be loud! We don’t even accept the idea of a convicted rapist being castrated!
Indeed, the blanket denial of the right to keep and bear arms for virtually every sort of felony (and many misdemeanors and even petty offenses) seems to deny the fundamental right of self-defense. Just because a person is convicted of fraud, or theft, or drunk driving does not mean they no long have a right to defend themselves against aggression. Or does it?
What do you think, dear reader?
An afterword: we here at TPOL neither imbibe nor suggest the imbibing of recreational drugs, including pot and alcohol (and for that matter, tobacco). But we believe that is, and should be, a matter of personal choice without coercion or threat of punishment – except when such use results in harm to others. Direct harm, not claims of “increased insurance rates” and “increased medical costs” and other such excuses for tyranny.
Share this:
About TPOL Nathan
Follower of Christ Jesus (a christian), Pahasapan (resident of the Black Hills), Westerner, Lover of Liberty, Free-Market Anarchist, Engineer, Army Officer, Husband, Father, Historian, Writer, Evangelist. Successor to Lady Susan (Mama Liberty) at TPOL.