there are already laws on the books regarding the commission of a crime with a firearm while intoxicated...........in other words you can own a firearm just dont use it while your fuked up......

The Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that a federal law banning illegal drug users from possessing firearms violated the constitutional rights of a Texas man who regularly used marijuana. The decision, delivered Thursday (June 18), marks a significant interpretation of the Second Amendment as it applies to gun ownership and drug use.

I have always viewed the laws taking away the rights of people that have committed some 'felony' as ignoring the 2nd Amendments 'shall not be infringed' clause. What part of the 2A says they can take your rights for making a screw up? In my opinion this SC ruling is in line with what the founding fathers intended.

If you were someone that is of concern to the government because you will not conform to their tyranny it is easy for them to stick a charge on you, and take away your rights to keep and bear arms so they have the upper hand. The founding fathers understood tyranny. They did not intend the government have the upper hand over the citizens.

The Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that a federal law banning illegal drug users from possessing firearms violated the constitutional rights of a Texas man who regularly used marijuana. The decision, delivered Thursday (June 18), marks a significant interpretation of the Second Amendment as it applies to gun ownership and drug use.

I have always viewed the laws taking away the rights of people that have committed some 'felony' as ignoring the 2nd Amendments 'shall not be infringed' clause. What part of the 2A says they can take your rights for making a screw up? In my opinion this SC ruling is in line with what the founding fathers intended.

If you were someone that is of concern to the government because you will not conform to their tyranny it is easy for them to stick a charge on you, and take away your rights to keep and bear arms so they have the upper hand. The founding fathers understood tyranny. They did not intend the government have the upper hand over the citizens.

That's not a biased headline at all. Maybe we should get out of business of having adults tell other adults what they can and can't do with their bodies. This isn't abortion. I should be able to eat an edible just so I can get a restful night's sleep without the ATF breaking my door, stealing my firearms, and killing my Golden Retriever.

The problem is the fact that marijuana is still classified by the Federal government as either a Schedule 3 or Schedule 1 controlled substance depending on whether it is for licensed medical use or recreational use respectively. Trump in April just had the classification for licensed medical use changed to Schedule 3 to help facilitate further medical research which had not been the case prior where it was flat out Schedule 1. So with individual State laws essentially decriminalizing marijuana in many cases does not offset the Federal government's classification.

The Federal government also regulates firearms while the states can either go with minimum standards set by the Federal government for possession or try to expand firearm restrictions often putting the two at odds - as is the case between Federal and state controlled substance use laws and their application. When the two come together, controlled substances and firearms, expect some disagreement until on the Federal level it can be sorted out.

When does a person's Constitutional right to bear arms come into play when dealing with controlled substances? Where to draw the line between an absolute right to bear arms and diminished capacity to handle those firearms safely in the interests of the public good? These are questions that still must be answered. Right now it does not seem so clear and the language surrounding these issues need more definition and clarity.