The court said the old laws focused on people whose substance abuse left them unable to manage their lives, while the federal law broadly covered regular drug users regardless of whether they posed a threat to anyone.
“It’s a good day for the Second Amendment when all nine justices can agree to protect gun rights,” Severino said. "The mere fact of illegal drug use, without more, isn’t enough to justify prosecution for gun ownership. Historically, ‘habitual drunkards’ who habitually lost use of their reason could have their rights restricted, but not just regular drinkers — even including Founding Fathers like John Adams, who drank ‘a tankard of hard cider’ with breakfast, or James Madison, who ‘consumed a pint of whisky daily.’
Seems like an incredibly reasonable take.
It… It almost feels like common sense prevailed??
Yes, it’s common sense that US needs more guns.
That overlooks the disarmament of some, on the basis that they are assumed to be dangerous or harmful without ever having done anything to be labeled as such and thus lose rights, while allowing those rights to others.
In sane countries there’s no such thing as “right to have guns”. Even in US this “right” was never intended to mean that. In sane countries there’s plenty of rules around having a gun permit and committing crimes, even non-violent ones, can be a reason to lose one. Consuming or being addicted to illegal substances can absolutely mean you should not be allowed to own deadly weapons.
Americans really do sound like they are constantly on the verge of civil war and taking away someone’s gun is basically a death sentence. “You can’t disarm drug users. How will they survive the war?” It would be hilarious if t wasn’t so sad.
Even in US this “right” was never intended to mean that.
I’m sure you’re going to start going on about Well Regulated Militias, and yet if someone tells you that they are in a militia that is organized and trains together regularly I bet you’re going to double down on your efforts to disarm them.
It’s just the equal application of the law in this case.
“Drug users” includes marijuana. It’s argued that the vast number of users can’t all be seen as dangerous. It’s clearly not what it was meant to do.
