mab22 Posted February 6, 2023 at 02:30 AM Share Posted February 6, 2023 at 02:30 AM US Ban On Pot Users Owning Guns Ruled Unconstitutional https://www.zerohedge.com/political/us-ban-pot-users-owning-guns-ruled-unconstitutional Quote Another week, another defeat for the gun-grabbers: A federal law barring marijuana users from owning and possessing firearms has been ruled unconstitutional. In a 54-page ruling in favor of Jared Harrison handed down Friday in Oklahoma, U.S. District Judge Patrick Wyrick said the government cannot claim that Harrison's "mere status as a user of marijuana justifies stripping him of his fundamental right to possess a firearm." It's the latest of many rulings against gun restrictions that are following in the widening wake of last June's watershed U.S. Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Quote "The mere use of marijuana carries none of the characteristics that the Nation's history and tradition of firearms regulation supports," wrote Wyrick. Further, "the United States has not identified a single historical law that is 'distinctly similar'" to the one barring marijuana users from possessing firearms. The DOJ tried to relate the general firearms ban against marijuana users to laws that targeted intoxicated people. Wyrick, a Trump appointee, wasn't having it: "The restrictions imposed by each law only applied while an individual was actively intoxicated or using intoxicants. Under these laws, no one's right to armed self-defense was restricted based on the mere fact that he or she was a user of intoxicants... Where the seven [DOJ-cited] laws took a scalpel to the right of armed self-defense, [this marijuana-gun law] takes a sledgehammer to the right." Harrison's public defender, Laura Deskin, called the ruling a "step in the right direction for a large number of Americans who deserve the right to bear arms and protect their homes just like any other American." The federal goverment is expected to appeal the decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyk101 Posted February 6, 2023 at 02:42 AM Share Posted February 6, 2023 at 02:42 AM Correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding was that normally, Federal Court rulings like this only affected the areas that the particular circuit covered. In this case, the 10th Circuit Court that covers Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, and finally Oklahoma. It wasn't a nationwide ruling until a decision came from the Supreme Court? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted February 6, 2023 at 02:48 AM Share Posted February 6, 2023 at 02:48 AM On 2/5/2023 at 9:42 PM, mikeyk101 said: Correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding was that normally, Federal Court rulings like this only affected the areas that the particular circuit covered. ... That's correct. Different Appeals Courts could rule differently, which would then be a good reason for the Supreme Court to take a case. Of course, if different Appeals Courts agree, then there won't be a reason for the Supreme Court to get involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikew Posted February 6, 2023 at 03:54 PM Share Posted February 6, 2023 at 03:54 PM On 2/5/2023 at 8:48 PM, Euler said: Different Appeals Courts could rule differently, which would then be a good reason for the Supreme Court to take a case. Indeed, does it not force the issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynn Posted February 6, 2023 at 09:36 PM Share Posted February 6, 2023 at 09:36 PM On 2/6/2023 at 9:54 AM, mikew said: Indeed, does it not force the issue? In theory the Supreme Court should take up circuit appeal splits as soon as they first happen, but we have a lot of history that shows they are slow or reluctant to do so and choose to kick the can down the road, apparently believing the circuit courts will overrule their previous precedent, something that rarely happens until the Supreme Court gets involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benbow Posted February 6, 2023 at 09:51 PM Share Posted February 6, 2023 at 09:51 PM Note, this is a trial court order only. Long story short, assume it does not apply to you, if your a pot smoker, as trial court orders are not precedent. See Howard v Wal Mart, 7th Cir. Now, if it does go on appeal and is affirmed, then it is precedent, at least in that circuit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted February 8, 2023 at 04:35 AM Share Posted February 8, 2023 at 04:35 AM For reference: Federal district court docket Tom Grieve covered the ruling, if you like your info in video format. The state threw everything they had as tradition, including laws prohibiting slaves from owning firearms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.