Illegal drug use is still a controversial topic in much of America, no matter how many states that it’s been legalized in.
That’s no surprise. After all, many people have extremely negative associations with illegal drug usage either from personal experience or from experiences that they’ve been told about.
But just because a person makes choices that we may disapprove of, does that mean that they shouldn’t be able to have all of the rights and freedoms that other people have?
That’s exactly the question that a Federal appeals court had to answer recently in relation to whether drug users are legally allowed to have firearms. Tom Ozimek writes,
A federal appeals court has ruled that a law barring people who regularly use illegal drugs from owning guns is constitutional because of longstanding concerns about public safety, but ordered a lower court to take a closer look at whether disarming a Pennsylvania man who smokes marijuana violates his individual Second Amendment rights.
In a split opinion issued on July 14, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled in a case involving Erik Harris, who was charged under federal statutes after buying three handguns while regularly using marijuana.
Harris, then 21, falsely stated on federal firearms purchase forms that he was not an unlawful user of marijuana, according to court filings.
I will admit to having conflicting feelings about this ruling.
On the one hand, I have personally seen how, in at least some cases, illegal drug usage can affect the cognitive capacity of the drug user.
On the other hand, I’m also a Second Amendment absolutist who believes that the government should not limit gun rights for adults in the U.S.
So, I understand why some people may want to prevent drug users from having firearms. I’m sympathetic to their concern.
I just don’t think that a person should be punished for what they might do. Punishment (in this case, taking away their right to have a firearm) should only come, if ever, after they have done something horrible that would cause them to deserve to lose that right.
That’s my thinking, though. What do you think about this court decision? Tell us in the comments below.
I agree in principle, I live in Idaho where we are surrounded by three states and Canada where pot is legal. Having been a deputy, fireman, and EMT, I would prefer someone driving under the influence of cannabis (they drive slowly and are easy to spot), as opposed to someone on booze or meth who put the pedal to the metal and drive recklessly. In my experience it’s the same with firearms. They should have the 2 A rights until they loose them.
People should not have their constitutional 2nd amendment rights removed/blocked for marijuana use, the same with concealed carry permits.
I want to throw something out here to consider. If someone uses THC medically. Does this rule apply to these individuals as well? As an avid shooter with chronic pain, I’m currently forced to decide between gun ownership or THC. I’m confident that if I were able to add THC to my treatment regiment, I’d be able to greatly decrease my use of narcotics. I know what’s better for my body, but I won’t give up my guns.
I’m a law abiding citizen. I was a FF/Medic for over 20 years. During that time I’ve also been a Deputy Coroner, Organ Coordinator, Flight Medic, etc. Professionally, I’ve seen more death and carnage from mental health issues, alcohol abuse, and prescription drug abuse. During my career I can not recall any negative incident involving someone who was only on THC.
If this is allowed to stand, what is keeping the politicians from adding more stipulations? “Shall not be infringed upon” is a very clear statement. Why are we continuing to waste time and money focusing on guns? Let’s address the real issue. Mental health and rasing kids instead of treating them as a burden. That’s another topic for another time.
No. Marijuana or other drug users should NOT be able to carry weapons.
As a person who drives a commercial truck, and have my own issues with arbitrary laws that fly in the face of common sense and the newer science thats been out there lately on Marijuana. And as a past user of that specific drug I can say without reservation that people are far more dangerous and reckless drinking alcohol while operating either a firearm or motorized vehicle. I feel like until you do something to lose your right to bear arms it should never be infringed and also feel the dea, atf and government as whole should take a close look at the differences in what each drug does to the human body and psyche. Marijuana doesn’t register as a dangerous drug in my opinion like meth or heroin, in any category. Quit trying to fill the prisons you have money invested in with non violent Marijuana charges. Thats ridiculous as the premise behind “Reefer madness ” propaganda.
If you grew up in the 60’s & 70’s most of us smoked a little pot, especially if you had friends and family returning from Vietnam. Unless you were some sort of Karen, smoking cigarettes was the norm.
Neither one made you violent felon. But I guess the type of drug you are using can?
Too many people are trying to justify what society is saying is okay and usually from a self centered perspective. The actual question is about “illegal drug use”. If it is illegal, it is criminal, so if someone chooses to use “illegal” drugs they are criminals and should not have the right or privilege to own or carry weapons potentially endangering others around them. There are some medications that will impair one’s ability to function so it is common sense to restrict their activities that may prove harmful to innocents around them.
Just because you pass something that says drug users don’t have rights to guns. Doesn’t meen that they won’t have guns!
Get on with stopping cartels!
If you look at the Constitution it just says that “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”. Back when they wrote it there were some pretty heavy drinkers as well as people who were doing other substances that were not regulated at the time as well as criminals who served in our military. It says nothing about any restrictions of any kind. That is what I believe as the law of the land. The B.S. so called laws that have been instituted since are an abomination as far as I am concerned. A way of control which I believe was not in the eyes of the fathers of our great nation. If we were to have a war here in the states all that would go down the drain. I believe in the Constitution!
If you restrict a person using pot, you then have to restrict alcohol users.
If they are a responsible adult it shouldn’t matter if they do drugs or not. There are a shit load of gun owners that smoke weed. Drugs don’t define the person. If they are responsible, it shouldn’t matter what they do. There are way more crooked cops carrying guns that should not be allowed to even look at a gun.
Shall not be infringed