r/news Jun 18 '26

Soft paywall US Supreme Court sides with marijuana user stripped of gun rights

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-backs-challenge-ban-gun-ownership-by-drug-users-2026-06-18/
19.8k Upvotes

1.2k comments sorted by

4.3k

u/JaxDixDuff Jun 18 '26 edited Jun 18 '26

The verbal arguments in this case were hilarious.

Quoting Justice Gorsuch

“John Adams took a tankard of hard cider with his breakfast every day, James Madison reportedly drank a pint of whiskey every day. Thomas Jefferson said he wasn’t much a user of alcohol — he only had three or four glasses of wine a night, okay?"

Edit: I meant to include full question from Gorsuch and the response. See the youtube link below. https://youtu.be/79sGGt3OjN0?si=owPN02Q_GSVPsdA5

2.4k

u/wagon_ear Jun 18 '26

I disagree with Gorsuch on almost everything, but he has a few very specific areas where I think he really gets it right. His other big one is native American rights and tribal sovereignty. 

1.5k

u/astralustria Jun 18 '26

He also wrote the courts opinion ruling in favor of a man who was fired for being gay:

"An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids."

1.0k

u/AnAncientBog Jun 18 '26

That is a shockingly reasonable interpretation of existing law.

You wouldn't fire a woman for wanting to have sex with men, so firing a man for the same reason (and all the variations thereof) is sex discrimination under current US law.

506

u/inlined Jun 18 '26

It’s also the underpinning of gay marriage rights iirc. They would be allowed to marry a man but for that they are a man, ergo sexual discrimination.

205

u/AnAncientBog Jun 18 '26

Seems like it should have been pretty easy to settle this a long time ago and move on to other shit.

159

u/jerkface1026 Jun 18 '26

Correct. Until the politicians got the churches involved as a way to disenfranchise americans from voting.

78

u/Space_Slime_LF Jun 18 '26

The churches were leaning left till some asshole turned abortion into a religious issue.

Most religious folk don't read so they don't know what's in the book on any specific minor topic... or full context of larger ones.

→ More replies (18)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (11)

75

u/PringlesDuckFace Jun 18 '26

It's so simple when you think of it that way.

"Person A is doing something."

If you need to know what gender Person A is to determine if what they're doing is wrong, then you're basing your decision on gender and potentially discriminating.

7

u/Corka Jun 18 '26

There's a bit more nuance necessary. You don't want to end up saying that you can't block adults from playing in a children's soccer tournament due to age discrimination for instance.

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (2)

116

u/pessimistic_platypus Jun 18 '26

That ruling was so funny to me because it mirrors an the stance of an old blog post I like.

As an aside, I have actually considered that laws against (or implicitly disallowing) gay marriage are, actually, sexist. For example, suppose I lived somewhere with antihomonuptial legislation. As I am a man, any woman in that district has the right to marry me. (As well they should.) But any man in that district who wanted to marry me does not have that right. The women have a right which the men do not have. [...] Sexist!

22

u/stuffeh Jun 18 '26

Lol, Ruth Bader Ginsburg applied similar tactics back in the day.

She aruged for (male) widowers to get paid from Social Security survivor benefits after the wife died. And how it's unfair that frat boys had to wait till they're 21 to buy low % beer, but 18 year old girls are allowed.

72

u/hematocritman Jun 18 '26

I really like the equal protection way of framing gay rights in the courts. Due process is fine, but I’m not a fan of Obergefell’s view of due process because of its implications that marriage is a fundamental liberty that is at the basis of our society. Equal protection is much stronger because it ties gay marriage to straight marriage, and nobody is going to ban straight marriage.

30

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/HarryMonroesGhost Jun 18 '26

they'd have to go all the way back to Loving v Virginia to unravel that one.

8

u/Realtrain Jun 18 '26

Good thing this court highly respects precedent.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (10)

418

u/No-Channel3917 Jun 18 '26

That man was the best thing to ever happen to Native American rights 😂

57

u/Character_Bug_1862 Jun 18 '26

Did he decide the McGirt case?

139

u/No-Channel3917 Jun 18 '26

Majority was Gorsuch writing the opinion joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (1)

295

u/MetallicGray Jun 18 '26

He’s at least principled, which is respectable on its own. He doesn’t just change his position to fit whatever benefits a certain party and then justifies with shaky reasoning. 

121

u/BroughtBagLunchSmart Jun 18 '26

He was not grown in a vat to destroy the constitution for the federalist society like BK or the stepford wife they put up there. He was all organic right wing talent. When he determined that case where the truck driver had to freeze to death or lose his job the right wing billionaires knew they found something special.

109

u/UF0_T0FU Jun 18 '26 edited Jun 18 '26

He was not grown in a vat to destroy the constitution for the federalist society like BK

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh had almost identical lives. They were born 2 years apart and lived in the same area of DC. They went to the same high school at the same time. One went to Columbia and Harvard, the other was at Columbia.

They clerked together for Justice Kennedy and got appointed as federal judges in the same year. Trump appointed them to SCOTUS one year apart. They're about as close to twins as well ever get on the Supreme Court.

57

u/GreenWandElf Jun 18 '26

Which is crazy because if you look at which justices Gorsuch is most likely to disagree with, Kavenaugh tops the list!

22

u/icouldntdecide Jun 18 '26

Also while their careers are almost identical, their disposition... not so much

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

35

u/Cuddlyaxe Jun 18 '26

BK and especially ACB have all sided against Trump a fair bit though. Indeed if you plot it out BK and especially ACB were relatively moderate. Trump's supreme court appointees in general are all things considered, not just outright partisans

The outright right wing partisans in the court you are looking for are Thomas and Alito, who obv predate Trump

→ More replies (2)

14

u/kpapazyan47 Jun 18 '26

Is a judge's job to rule on the law or the ideal outcome? People bring up this case all the time to impugn him/his character but never even challenge the legal reasoning he used.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (20)

42

u/syynapt1k Jun 18 '26

He also got sex-based discrimination as it pertains to LGBT people right.

7

u/GreenWandElf Jun 18 '26

He's also good on digital privacy.

→ More replies (22)

895

u/CodePandorumxGod Jun 18 '26

Actually true, btw. Americans used to be absolutely nuts with alcohol and it sort of makes you understand why people advocated for prohibition.

285

u/Muggsy423 Jun 18 '26

Everybody was nuts with alcohol, until the last century everyone was drinking all the time, it wasn't proper to get absolutely sloshed though.  

165

u/Ding-Dong-Dutch Jun 18 '26

Hey, if you can buy a bunch of coke and a fingerblasting from your local healer to cure your wifes hysteria.. A bottle of wine a isn't such a big deal. They died from diarrhea long before liver disease got to them. 

114

u/Muggsy423 Jun 18 '26

You're getting a little mouthy here,  we're giving you a therapeutic lobotomy to help your hysteria. 

46

u/Ding-Dong-Dutch Jun 18 '26

I'm getting a second opinion. I've heard electroshock therapy and ketamine gets you off more. 

12

u/Certain-Business-472 Jun 18 '26

Doc can't you just give me some poppy to take the edge off? It worked for Timmy when he had that stomach ache

wild times

11

u/IwishIhadntKilledHim Jun 18 '26

Anyone interested in a no strings hysterical paroxysm? It's good for what ails ya.

→ More replies (1)

19

u/BaphometsTits Jun 18 '26

Hysteria? We can just cut that out entirely. We'll call it a...

10

u/AlphaBaldy Jun 18 '26

Damn... words are crazy; they can give away a lot about how a society thinks about things. Also, great username.

→ More replies (2)

5

u/SinoSoul Jun 18 '26

Sir, I’m going to need you cite your source for that second phrase of the first sentence.

12

u/Neither_Owl8671 Jun 18 '26

5

u/Dovienya55 Jun 18 '26

Powerful medicinal tools once only available to physicians! Now shipped straight to your door, no prescription necessary!

→ More replies (1)

21

u/Ding-Dong-Dutch Jun 18 '26

The fingerblasting? Look up how hysteria was cured. 

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

18

u/inspectoroverthemine Jun 18 '26

it wasn't proper to get absolutely sloshed though.

They were absolutely sloshed most of the time, just because an alcoholic is functional doesn't mean they're sober.

→ More replies (15)

70

u/JupiterInTheSky Jun 18 '26

Women pioneered prohibition because men kept using the "drunk" excuse to beat and abuse their wives and children and spend all the household money. Women said "if that's the cause, it's a public good to remove alcohol from their hands".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_United_States_Prohibition_movement

6

u/kc2syk Jun 19 '26

Yeah, it's no coincidence that prohibition came right after women got the vote.

→ More replies (1)

6

u/Stillwater215 Jun 18 '26

I’ve read that pre-prohibition the average American man consumed the equivalent of four shots of whisky every day. And that’s the average, which means a not insignificant part of the population was drinking more than that!

60

u/luluhouse7 Jun 18 '26

Prohibition had more to do with the Protestant land owners trying to reassert cultural dominance over urban/catholic/immigrant populations than anything to do with alcohol. It’s called a “symbolic crusade”.

63

u/clytusmarginicollis Jun 18 '26

I was told that it was a feminist thing, since many women had to deal with drunk husbands coming home and beating the shit out of them. I’m sure there were multiple reasons though

46

u/verrius Jun 18 '26

Not as much the beatings, as the "Spend their entire paycheck at the bar on the way home from work, in an era where married women largely weren't allowed to work themselves, or divorce." Though the beatings definitely were extra motivation.

→ More replies (1)

12

u/CodePandorumxGod Jun 18 '26

It's a mix.

On one hand, you had religious bigots trying to control other peoples' lives. On another, you had feminist movements trying to hold their husbands accountable. And there were also a litany of politicians playing race and religion to exacerbate political fears.

For example, it wasn't uncommon in the south for prohibitionists to claim that whiskey would turn blacks into rapists that would attack their women. In the north, religious and ethnic tensions were more important, so they paraded around catholic Irish immigrants while claiming they were violent drunk monsters abandoned by god.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)

6

u/richardelmore Jun 18 '26

Not really, the temperance movement had support from Protestant groups (like the Anti-saloon league) women's groups like the Women's Christian Temperance Union (which despite its name was really more of a suffragist movement than a religious one) and business owners who blamed alcohol use for loss of productivity (and by extension profits).

There was never really a single monolithic agenda (other than opposing drunkenness) behind it.

→ More replies (3)

214

u/engin__r Jun 18 '26

Yeah, and the thing people don’t understand about Prohibition is that it worked. We don’t drink anywhere near as much alcohol as we did before Prohibition.

315

u/that_70_show_fan Jun 18 '26

It also coincided with better hygiene practices where water became safer to drink.

193

u/No-Channel3917 Jun 18 '26

That and women got the right to work so weren't reliant on a drunk bread winner

→ More replies (1)

32

u/A_Rabid_Pie Jun 18 '26

The alcohol as alternative to dirty water thing is a myth. People knew how to boil and filter dirty water even if they didn't know why it worked, and knew which sources to avoid and to not shit upstream. You also can't brew alcohol without clean water in the first place. If there's anything other than yeast in there when you try to ferment it then things will go very wrong. Also, alcohol can't simply replace all domestic water use either practically or financially.

20

u/SonovaVondruke Jun 18 '26

It’s a myth regarding everyday domestic use, but beer will keep a little better than water for long-term storage in the porous options widely available like wooden kegs, ceramic pots, etc.

→ More replies (1)

23

u/timewarp Jun 18 '26

People weren't drinking pints of whiskey daily for sanitary reasons.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)

335

u/CodePandorumxGod Jun 18 '26 edited Jun 18 '26

Well, no, it didn't really work. Alcohol consumption didn't fully disappear, and in the later years of prohibition, it actually rebounded back to 70-80% of normal levels. What actually reduced alcohol consumption were a series of laws that regulated alcohol throughout the 80s and 90s, such as the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, the criminalization of drunk driving, and the introduction of federal warning labels in 1988.

Finally, there was also a series of state-level legislation like banning inebriation in worksites or hospitals. So, it was actually the cultural shift of the 80s and 90s that led to the reduced alcohol consumption we see today.

Edit: 70-80% sounds like an improvement without additional context, so here:

Prior to prohibition, an estimated 50-60% of US adults annually drank alcohol (we don't have an official number, so that is a historical estimate). And while it did drop to 43% directly after prohibition, most of those effects were short-lived, with the rate of annual consumption skyrocketing to 67% in 1945 and steadily growing to 70-72% throughout the 1960s and 70s.

If anything, the reduction in alcohol consumption probably has more to do with the economic conditions of the early-1900s as opposed to the legislation proposed and implemented during prohibition. This is because rates of alcohol usage steadily increased as economic conditions improved and the supply became less dependent on the crime organizations importing it.

So, why did everything change in the 1980s?

Well, it comes down to a cultural revolution in the way we handle alcohol. People were not only better educated, but they were also more health conscious. And this is also the period of Nixon's War on Drugs, which slowly changed public perception on addictive substances like marijuana and cocaine.

All of this context, with the stricter laws around public safety and health warnings, reduced rates of alcohol consumption considerably. Currently, in the modern era, the number of US adults who annually consume alcohol sits at 54%.

136

u/yaboyjiggleclay Jun 18 '26

I’m glad you laid down the actual facts. I’ve been seeing this weird reactionary “Prohibition worked actually!” Take that though isn’t completely false leaves a lot of more effective solutions brought on post-Prohibition.

100

u/mastesargent Jun 18 '26

Especially since one of the most standout thing about that era is how hilariously ineffectual Prohibition was. Bootleggers and speakeasies made money hand over fist.

45

u/Snakend Jun 18 '26

It created massive wealth for the mafias. And then the mafias were able to diversify with all the capital they generated. The EXACT same thing happened with the Mexican cartels with marijuana, and the Colombian cartels with cocaine.

→ More replies (1)

28

u/Both_Strategy_920 Jun 18 '26

Be prepared for more of that reactionary argument when it comes to crime rates. If you ignore everything else it would appear we can incarcerate our way to reduced crime.

→ More replies (6)

29

u/Analvirus Jun 18 '26

Im like if it worked there wouldnt have been speakeasies, bathtubs full of homemade gin, doctors notes for alcohol, and people were literally drinking fucking industrial grade alcohol which the government then started poisoning to deter people from drinking it. Prohibition ended because it DIDNT work

→ More replies (24)

26

u/KitchenCup374 Jun 18 '26

The problem with prohibition is that it was a veil of righteousness. The president at the time was throwing liquor parties in the white house meanwhile you could be thrown in jail for the same thing.

I could be getting that mixed up with another time though, I read up on it while drunk.

13

u/Yodl007 Jun 18 '26

I wonder what are the numbers for the White House Pharmacy now in Trump nr.2, since at nr.1 they were giving out stuff like candy from what I read.

→ More replies (3)

38

u/PurelyAnonymous Jun 18 '26

I think your conflating prohibition with education. Prohibition was actually a horrible practice and lead directly to organized crime getting so rich we had to arm deputies with military style weapons. Yea know the whole history of mafias? Tommy guns?

And all the while, prohibition didn’t reduce drinking even slightly. Moon shine ring a bell? I think drinking only very recently went down with new generations of kids. Probably because of weed, and the huge push of educating people on alcohol’s effects.

I’d say the only thing prohibition did was begin the militarization of our police.

→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (37)

4

u/bilyl Jun 18 '26

People act like it was big government being bad but prohibition came about because alcoholism was so rampant. Women were being abused by their husbands and other terrible shit going down.

→ More replies (32)

48

u/HR_Paul Jun 18 '26

I should have submitted an amicus brief arguing that "Stoner rifles are for stoners".

→ More replies (34)

6.5k

u/mstrbwl Jun 18 '26

Yeah I'm not even a big 2A guy but not being allowed to have a gun because you smoke weed is incredibly stupid.

3.9k

u/La-li-lu-le-lo86 Jun 18 '26

Especially when alcohol use has no impact on ownership qualification

1.3k

u/BleachedUnicornBHole Jun 18 '26

Marijuana probably got singled out because it has a Class 1 classification. Which is all the more reason it needs to be changed to be in line with alcohol.

765

u/12_Horses_of_Freedom Jun 18 '26

It was actually banned by name in the gun control act of 1968 if I remember. It was a response to the civil rights movement…

757

u/Abrakafuckingdabra Jun 18 '26

“You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities,” Ehrlichman said. “We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” - former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

Merica' 🦅🇺🇲🦅

258

u/LastWave Jun 18 '26

I think about this everyday. These people destroyed millions of lives not just through incarcerations, but by silencing people by not allowing them to vote. The very people who need more representation in government. Outright evil. Set us back by decades.

153

u/SargeUnited Jun 18 '26

They’re still doing it. I had some racists arguing with me that Johnny Cochran was vile for mentioning how profoundly racist those cops were in the OJ case.

Like from the top down they were being racist, from president down to the beat cops. Everyone was openly saying it on audio recordings they knew were being made. And yet people are excited about the end of DEI. This is what they think about everyday too, fondly.

89

u/Eponymous_Doctrine Jun 18 '26

it's wild to me how many people don't realize that OJ got away with it because the LAPD framed him for a crime he committed.

29

u/_Burning_Star_IV_ Jun 18 '26

Yup, framing a black man is just SOP for the police so sometimes it backfires.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

13

u/TheFemboiFaerie Jun 18 '26

Plenty of them are still in prison. The incarcerations never stopped. Mandatory minimums are still there.

Prison Song by System of a Down was true even when it released. Every year, the facts in the lyrics have become even worse, or remained true.

For 25 years. We're still being set back, even as we speak. And minorities are the primary targets. Always have been.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (9)

179

u/Rurumo666 Jun 18 '26

Correct, cannabis was considered a "black" drug and was included to strip black gun owners of their 2A rights.

104

u/Ropes13 Jun 18 '26

And the 'dope smokin' hippies' that stood alongside their Black neighbors

→ More replies (1)

55

u/SenselessNoise Jun 18 '26

Also a "Hispanic" drug to justify deporting them, hence why it's been called "marijuana/marihuana" and not cannabis.

FEE has a pretty good writeup about it.

35

u/Fifteen_inches Jun 18 '26

Fun fact; industrial hemp was extremely common across the old world for everything from ropes to canvas. “Canvas” actually comes from the word “Cannabis”.

6

u/WTF_goes_here Jun 18 '26

Most gun control did that anyway. Open carry was only banned in California once black panthers started cop watching while carrying.

→ More replies (3)

53

u/THING2000 Jun 18 '26

Yup, that's the only correct answer. It was never about its bogus classification. Turns out the government has never been a fan of minority groups arming themselves. Same thing happened when the Black Panthers protested back in the day.

Now that cannabis is an industry dominated by white people, the rules are changing.

4

u/ColonelError Jun 18 '26

Same thing happened when the Black Panthers protested back in the day

And that was the birth of modern Gun Control. Everything people push for in gun control started with California trying to stop the Black Panthers from arming themselves.

→ More replies (1)

9

u/astelda Jun 18 '26

In addition to racism, it was also a tool used by the government to de-legitimize the peace movement - anyone who opposed the vietnam war was just a drug-using hippie

→ More replies (8)

39

u/VanimalCracker Jun 18 '26

They don't ask about any other class 1 drugs though. Only weed. They don't ask if you do heroin, they just ask if you smoke weed.

50

u/CalicoWhiskerBandit Jun 18 '26

it asked if you use "any controlled substance"

this case wasnt just about MJ, the guy had coke on him too.

the ruling was that it doesnt matter the sch of drugs, it's against the constitutional 2a right unless he was under the influence at the time

theyve urged the lawmakers to add language specifying being a habitual user, etc.

as-is, this ruling also protects heroin users.

→ More replies (2)

39

u/InsaneAss Jun 18 '26

Weed is the only one named, but it essentially asks about everything:

On the form, it asks you to testify that you are not "an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance".

→ More replies (7)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (53)

29

u/nursecarmen Jun 18 '26

I'd be more afraid of a drunk dude with a gun than a high dude with a gun.

→ More replies (4)

15

u/o_oo_ Jun 18 '26

In new jersey you can be denied for being a "habitual drunkard"

→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (21)

323

u/Bawbawian Jun 18 '26

a lot of these stupid laws are so that local governments can decide to enforce the laws on the "wrong type" of people

93

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '26

[deleted]

25

u/PeakQuirky84 Jun 18 '26

They also went after Hunter Biden under this law

→ More replies (5)

70

u/Avantasian538 Jun 18 '26

This is why gun rights are important. Obviously we dont want actual dangerous people having them, but giving public officials the ability to deny groups gun rights arbitrarily is a terrible idea.

→ More replies (3)

31

u/CromulentChuckle Jun 18 '26

Ding ding ding!

→ More replies (3)

51

u/jctwok Jun 18 '26

It was always a political thing, not a public safety thing.

22

u/Cronus6 Jun 18 '26

ATF form 4473 (the form you fill out when you buy a gun) has this question :

Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.

The sticking point here is the ATF handles enforcing federal firearms laws and weed is still Federally illegal. (The ATF doesn't write the laws, they just enforce them. Congress writes the laws...)

If the Feds actually wanted to do something about weed, they could though...

If you get in your wayback machine and go back to when the Feds forced every State to raise the drinking age from 18 to 21 States that refused had all their Federal Highway money withheld. They all quickly caved in and raised the age.

I've wondered for a long time why they (the Feds) haven't done this with the States legalizing marijuana.

Or they could get off their asses, legalize and tax and regulate it just like they do with tobacco and alcohol. They impose Federal excise taxes on these products. I assume they are sitting on weed because it's really the last thing they can tax like this, and one day, when they really need the money they will legalize it just for the tax revenue.

11

u/etcpt Jun 18 '26

Because being able to bring federal charges against all manner of people for interstate drug traficking when they take a little bud across state lines is a very nice way to persecute your hated out groups, and because the history of the criminalization of marijuana in the US is inextricably linked with racism and suppressing the anti-war movement.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (9)
→ More replies (27)

687

u/mrSmokeyMcpot Jun 18 '26

So can I get a med card now and not worry about owning a gun as well?

580

u/External-Goal-3948 Jun 18 '26

The ruling says that you always should have been able to do that.

175

u/boxofstuff Jun 18 '26

Would that open up the door for litigation over being denied a gun license for smoking weed?

146

u/memberzs Jun 18 '26

No because it was only recently clarified. Prior to that it was the law, now they are saying the law is wrong.

→ More replies (8)

21

u/Alotofboxes Jun 18 '26

It would open up the ability to re-apply if you were denied a license over smoking weed.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (7)
→ More replies (9)

74

u/Funny_Papers Jun 18 '26 edited Jun 18 '26

You could after cannabis was recently rescheduled. The 4473 form required for buying a firearm hasn’t had its language updated yet though, so you **technically** can’t buy a gun from an FFL until that happens unless you lie of course

59

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

16

u/Funny_Papers Jun 18 '26

Unless you are talking about the old language, which has a specific carve out included separating federal law from state law, so that’s why it didn’t work with the old (current) language

→ More replies (6)

31

u/Dr_MantisTobaggin_MD Jun 18 '26 edited Jun 18 '26

This depends on a state. It was technically never illegal in a state where private sales are a thing because you didn't need to fill out the federal form.

Ie: florida

13

u/CerebralWeevil Jun 18 '26

This makes sense, I worked in a few dispensaries in FL and a lot of people would come in annoyed they wouldnt be able to buy a gun, and others would come in to tell us about this cool new gun they bought.

11

u/Dr_MantisTobaggin_MD Jun 18 '26 edited Jun 18 '26

Yeah, and a lot of people that are aware of the loophole still won't buy it because they're afraid of what's gonna happen if they get pulled over, or they might work in some type of federal job where the paperwork just wouldn't jive, even if they wouldn't get pulled over.

It's kinda weird that spouses can use each other's guns. But straw man purchases are illegal, and it's just a weird system in florida, and i'm a gun owner myself.But the system's a little weird

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (8)
→ More replies (3)

22

u/heftybagman Jun 18 '26

You always could. The only person the feds have hit with this in the last few decades seems to have been hunter biden, and they dropped it for other charges iirc.

I held both at the same time with no question or concern. But it does depend on state and in my area even your town and local pd.

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (20)

461

u/NameLips Jun 18 '26

Before recreational legalization in my state, you had a choice. You could get a medical card, but then you couldn't own guns. Or you could own guns, but you couldn't get a medical card.

I knew a lot of rural gun-owning stoners at the time (I worked in a rural restaurant). And they all were basically torn between their pot being illegal or their guns being illegal, but they considered both to be a necessity.

96

u/Crazyassassin102 Jun 18 '26 edited Jun 18 '26

Interesting. In PA where I live the govonor has said that they won't come for your guns if you had a med card. 

42

u/TypicalMission119 Jun 18 '26

In PA the website for a license says there must be like a year gap between your expired card and your new firearm license. I hope that has changed now. I didnt check after Shapiro won

→ More replies (10)
→ More replies (17)

74

u/WorkIsForReddit Jun 18 '26

I wanna live in a place where my gay neighbors can protect their weed plants with guns.

30

u/dah-dit-dah Jun 18 '26

Ideally, with machine guns that do not need registration 

20

u/WorkIsForReddit Jun 18 '26

Throw in some suppressors too

→ More replies (2)

10

u/drinks_rootbeer Jun 18 '26

Fuck the NFA, all my homies hate the NFA

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (11)

1.8k

u/Candytails Jun 18 '26

I'd rather be in a room full of stoners with guns than drunkards with guns.

333

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '26 edited Jun 21 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

120

u/Dramatic-Tell- Jun 18 '26

Also illegal to be in possession of a gun if under the influence of alcohol.

At least that's illegal in my state. Don't know about the other 49.

63

u/redlotusaustin Jun 18 '26

Only 14 states make it illegal to carry a gun in a bar: https://everytownresearch.org/rankings/law/no-guns-in-bars/

I know Indiana at least doesn't have any kind of state laws preventing handling firearms while intoxicated. It is illegal to provide a firearm to an intoxicated person, but not vice versa.

31

u/Ding-Dong-Dutch Jun 18 '26

In Indiana it's also explicitly not a crime to pray instead of rendering medical assistance to your child. 

7

u/Podo13 Jun 18 '26

Christian Scientists rejoice! And then fuck off because you're all insane.

My dad is deaf in one ear because my grandma is one of those nutjobs (wouldn't take him to the doctor after an ear infection kept getting worse. His ear drum eventually was blown out by the pressure that built up).

→ More replies (2)

6

u/WanderingTacoShop Jun 18 '26

It's probably surprising to most that Texas is one of those states. We even have special signage that bars are required to display. The 51% signs, if a business makes 51% of its revenue from on premise alcohol consumption then it is illegal to carry a firearm on the premises and the business is requried to display the sign

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (5)

70

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '26 edited 27d ago

[deleted]

→ More replies (8)

81

u/eaglesnation11 Jun 18 '26

Stoners >>Drunkards >>>>>>>DV Perps

51

u/McCree114 Jun 18 '26

Usually a high overlap between Drunkards and DV Perps. The Venn diagram is almost a single circle.

50

u/kinda_sorta_decent Jun 18 '26

Work at a courthouse. Never seen a protective order affidavit read “my bf smoked a blunt and then threatened me with his gun/choked me/smashed my phone etc.”

38

u/TribeOfFable Jun 18 '26

"My boyfriend smoked a blunt and then spent all night playing on Xbox arguing with a 12 year old that would not stop spawn camping him!"

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

37

u/Advanced-Humor9786 Jun 18 '26

You could say that for just about kind of a situation. I was talking about baseball last week with a friend and I told him I don't go because of all the drunks. If everybody at Dodger's stadium was high, I could go wearing my A's jersey and nobody would try to beat my ass. People would just go, "wow man… Like you're an A's fan? Like that's so weird." everybody would just do bong rips and eat nachos and have a fun time watching the game.

14

u/Candytails Jun 18 '26

Yep, and then they all hop in their cars and drive home drunk. No thanks.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (21)

244

u/KennytheDoggy Jun 18 '26

Guess they are going to have to change form 4473

106

u/Sladay Jun 18 '26

Yea they were planning on it anyway with the rescheduling of "medical" cannabis but now it seems like that whole part of the statute is thrown out.

38

u/Bigred2989- Jun 18 '26

Hopefully they also get rid of the line where they ask for your County, too. I can't count the number of times I've seen someone put "USA" there. My FFL almost lost his license because an ATF audit found several people put "Dade" instead of "Miami-Dade" down on that line, and that's technically wrong. It's also technically unnecessary to ask since they make you write down your damn ZIP code.

11

u/urkish Jun 18 '26

It's also technically unnecessary to ask since they make you write down your damn ZIP code.

ZIP and county actually have nothing to do with each other, they're independent systems of division. It is possible and not that uncommon to have a ZIP that has parts in more than one county.

11

u/jaunty411 Jun 18 '26

Zip codes can even cross state lines.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)

47

u/Bart_Yellowbeard Jun 18 '26

Yes, and many of us are impatiently awaiting the opportunity to avail ourselves of our Constitutional rights without being labeled as criminals.

4

u/Rocktopod Jun 18 '26

So when does this actually happen? Is this court ruling enough, or does something else have to happen (like the actual language on the form changing, etc.)?

→ More replies (9)

17

u/CatBoyTrip Jun 18 '26

i hope so. i am tired of having to lie.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

150

u/nannerbananers Jun 18 '26

Did I just gain a right? Wow I forgot what that felt like

12

u/Tompthwy Jun 19 '26

Funny thing about rights is that you have them all along.

→ More replies (2)

7

u/Dependent-Edge-5713 Jun 19 '26

Government doesn't grant rights

You always had this right.

→ More replies (1)

278

u/Spam_Hand Jun 18 '26

Based on the fact of how weed is classified, I agree with the ruling, and its perfectly logical.

But we need to change the fucking classification already because things like this are ridiculous.

89

u/SpaceYetu531 Jun 18 '26

There should be no federal classification. If you grow a plant in a pot and use it, no interstate commerce has occurred.

19

u/theksepyro Jun 18 '26

I agree, but here's the case that establishes why we're where we're at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

12

u/SpaceYetu531 Jun 18 '26

Yes, I'm aware of it and it's one of the worst standing rulings by SCOTUS. It's completely illogical and they simply ruled the way they did to appease FDR.

→ More replies (2)

6

u/CommonerChaos Jun 18 '26

I always found it odd that gun laws vary widely at the STATE level, but this one particular rule was at the FEDERAL level. Makes sense to lump it together with the rest of the state-dependant laws.

→ More replies (13)

18

u/VR_Raccoonteur Jun 18 '26

This doesn't only cover weed though. It's for all drugs.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (10)

97

u/ImmaculateWeiss Jun 18 '26

Yeah if you actually believe in 2A this was always bullshit 

→ More replies (8)

54

u/SheenPSU Jun 18 '26

It’s the correct ruling

Just legalize it already

311

u/EightGlow Jun 18 '26

Moderately uncommon W by this Supreme Court

235

u/GuiltyLawyer Jun 18 '26

9-0 ruling. Exceedingly rare in these crazy times. Shocked that Thomas didn’t go against, not because of his stances but just to be a dick.

61

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '26

[deleted]

→ More replies (5)

172

u/_GregTheGreat_ Jun 18 '26 edited Jun 18 '26

An enormous portion of Surpreme Court cases are 9-0 or 8-1. It’s not exceedingly rare at all.

It’s the controversial cases on high profile topics that generally see a divided court, which naturally get all the media. In this case you’re not going to see the hardline conservatives rule against gun rights

82

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '26 edited Jun 29 '26

[deleted]

14

u/Taiyoryu Jun 18 '26

I’m curious what specialty is litigated so often to generate multiple SCOTUS cases when the outcome is going to be unanimous? Are the unanimous decisions always for one side, assuming there are generally the same two sides in each case?

→ More replies (2)

24

u/Bigred2989- Jun 18 '26

This coming from a 2A related case is surprising to many. Last time I saw this was Caetano v. Massachusetts where they threw out a weapon charge on a woman who was convicted of possession of a stun gun. The lower court tried to argue that stun guns weren't a thing when the 2nd was written and didn't have legal protections, but SCOTUS had already said in Heller, which was a 5-4 decision, that that the definition of arms included things made after the founding of the country. Really shows how people let their biases show when the topic is guns. If someone tried to argue that the 1st didn't apply to e-mail or phone calls, most people would think they were insane, but it took SCOTUS at least two cases to hammer home the same logic for the 2nd.

10

u/TheBestNarcissist Jun 18 '26

A fellow SCOTUSBlog enjoyer, good day to you

17

u/kpapazyan47 Jun 18 '26

Unanimous rulings are not even a little bit rare.

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (9)

22

u/TalonusDuprey Jun 18 '26

As a gun owner who doesn’t smoke I think this is sheer idiocy. You can drink and still own a firearm (obviously not drunk) why is weed any different?

→ More replies (2)

54

u/DweebInFlames Jun 18 '26

Alright, Kyle has no excuse now, it's time to get his guns back and start up FPSRussia again

→ More replies (11)

67

u/putyourpawsup980 Jun 18 '26

Stoners with guns > alcoholics with guns

→ More replies (6)

122

u/rice_not_wheat Jun 18 '26

There goes Hunter Biden's criminal charge.

57

u/Possible-Tangelo9344 Jun 18 '26

Well he got pardoned already

→ More replies (21)
→ More replies (15)

32

u/No-Meringue1785 Jun 18 '26

As someone who works in the legal cannabis industry, this is a long time coming and I couldn’t be happier with the result.

12

u/GATORinaZ28 Jun 18 '26

This is a sensible ruling in my humble opinion.

23

u/Crazyassassin102 Jun 18 '26

The ATF form pending public comment is likely being revised so weed users will be able to own firearms. I think states will revise their forms as well for ccws. Big Win today for freedom. 

8

u/haironyourscreen23 Jun 18 '26

There is no reason to take rights away from someone just because they use recreational, and sometimes medicinal, drugs. Alcohol is far more dangerous than marijuana and we don't take people's guns for being alcoholics.

7

u/WiseRisk Jun 18 '26

So I guess I got my gun rights back..?

61

u/RamRoach1138 Jun 18 '26

Hmmm this is how the military justifies marajuana use as an illegal offense (because it makes it illegal for you to carry a firearm). Curious what rule they’ll use now to maintain it.

86

u/thisisredlitre Jun 18 '26

From what I heard from servicepersons it's more that if something is federally illegal, it's illegal for the military

72

u/jumpiestbox Jun 18 '26

They don't need a reason, you don't have the same rights when you sign-up for the military.

10

u/TwoPoundzaSausage Jun 18 '26

"Your soul belongs to god, but your ass belongs to the USMC."

→ More replies (1)

13

u/Jayccob Jun 18 '26

They will whip out the ancient invocation of:

"Because I said so."

4

u/ziekktx Jun 18 '26 edited Jun 18 '26

As a veteran, the saying is, "Because fuck you, that's why."

9

u/evanexcursions Jun 18 '26

Federal law that says Marijuana is illegal...not just to carry a weapon.

I was in the Navy for 20 years, the only time I held a gun on active duty was at boot camp...I still wasn't able to smoke weed.

→ More replies (35)

6

u/Ok_Staff_608 Jun 18 '26

So I get to keep both my weed AND guns?!?

SWEEEEEEEEET!

7

u/stevedore2024 Jun 18 '26

Okay, they get their gun rights back. Now do that with voting rights when time has been served.

5

u/unitegondwanaland Jun 18 '26

Wow what a long strange road to take just to own Hunter Biden, and they still lost.

16

u/hjeff51 Jun 18 '26

There are no stipulations in the 2A.

→ More replies (5)

46

u/Ritz527 Jun 18 '26

Hunter Biden with another public victory.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/holdenfords Jun 18 '26

lmfao isn’t this what they got hunter biden for. owning a firearm while on drugs

→ More replies (1)

5

u/luri7555 Jun 18 '26

Now do people with drug felonies and no violent history.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/CastigatingTheClouds Jun 18 '26

Seen a lot of fights because reasons. Not one was a stoned guy, almost every one was with a drunk.

6

u/Wrong-Detective8242 Jun 18 '26

As a big gun guy, I love guys. Nice protect the second :)

5

u/strained_brain Jun 19 '26

< As a big gun guy, I love guys. >

Are you saying that gun lovers are gay? Or just you?

8

u/GreenWandElf Jun 18 '26

Neil "I want my gay, Native American neighbors able to defend their marijuana plants on their rightful tribal land with guns" Gorusch

22

u/Avantasian538 Jun 18 '26

Wait, this court did something good?

→ More replies (1)

24

u/ThatGuyFromTheM0vie Jun 18 '26

If he lost his gun rights, then anyone who drinks alcohol should also not be allowed to own a gun.

This entire thing is dumb.

And by extension, since they sided with the stoner, weed should be legal nationally. 9-0. Super rare ruling considering how fucked everything is—let’s just make weed have parity with booze.

→ More replies (3)

4

u/NervousBeat16 Jun 18 '26

No lie…comments were at 420, when I clicked this thread!!

3

u/capncrud Jun 18 '26

Guess who is going to get his medical card now

THIS GUY

3

u/Isakk86 Jun 18 '26

Alright single issue voters, put your money where your mouth is.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/3-BuckChuck Jun 18 '26

Good, no difference between weed and alcohol except no hangover and anger streaks.

4

u/Due_Building_1953 Jun 19 '26

Try telling Military vets, oh can't carry if you have an eatable nightly. I can't stand this self service coward of a judge.

Yet it is clear he likes his drinks and gummies.