Loading …The battle lines over the Second Amendment are being drawn once again at the nation’s highest court. Just weeks into its new term, the Supreme Court has agreed to take up a second major gun rights case, this one involving a head-spinning constitutional question. This new case promises a profound test of how our 18th-century rights apply to 21st-century realities.
At stake is the constitutionality of a long-standing federal law, and the Court’s decision will have major implications for hundreds of criminal prosecutions each year. It also places the Trump administration in the unusual position of defending a federal gun restriction.
Discussion
How far can we stretch the Constitution before it snaps?? 🤔
This is a tricky one y'all. I usually side with Trump, but even the best make mistakes sometimes. The right to bear arms is just that – a RIGHT. Doesn't matter if you're tokin' on some weed or voted for the wrong guy last election, that right ain't changing! They want to control EVERYTHING. Remember folks: Second Amendment is non-negotiable! These libs don't care about rights; they just want power. Keep those judges in check and let's hope they protect our God-given freedoms. #MAGA #2Aforever
You want to let a convicted felon to be legally allowed to legally own a gun? This is a moot areument if a drug user is convicted of using and it is a felony he can't legally own a gun or poses one as a convicted felon…
No drug user should have firearms they will blame it on the drugs and get away with so no
true
Pot should never have been listed as a federal controlled substance ( it was done to make the alcohol industry happy) alcohol 🍺 is a drug also how would you feel if a future court ruled if you have ever drank alcohol you could never own a gun? It wouldn’t effect me I don’t drink 🚱 and I don’t smoke 🚭
If they take drugs and kill someone, they need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law just like a drunken driver gets you kill you go to prison unless you meet the requirement of imminent danger!
But the Democrats can let all the illegal aliens in and give them benefits that US citizens pay for and that's ok!!!
Whats the difference in a pot smoker or these weekend warriors getting drunk and hunting.Or someone on prescription drugs.Maybe they need to try and take everyone's guns LOL
Why would you
hand a gun to someone
who's out of their mind
One of the problems with the various "freedoms" we enjoy as Americans is the fact that the all inclusive nature of these freedoms often clash with our own personal standards.
Recently, it was being considered that restricting gun ownership from the LGBTQ+ community would be a good idea. But that would constitute "infringement" for a segment of the population who had, in fact, committed no crimes.
We cannot start infringing on our freedoms one group at a time. It is a dangerous precedent.
Supreme court has no subject matter jurisdiction over the Constitutional laws to alter them. When all Interpretations are clear as written and cannot be assumed by courts nor by votes, the law stands as it is worded, so shall it stand as LAW. The supreme court does not have lawful authority to rule on medical fictions due to medications taken. People taking medications have as much or more rights (due to being injured, ill, broken, etc…) to own guns for self-protection and the protection…
Then you might as well let them shoot people while under the influence of drugs and alcohol. The first words out of their mouth while in front of a judge is I was high, I didn’t mean to do it. You can not allow drug or alcohol use while in possession of a firearm or weapon. Too many people have died already. The black thugs are always high and killing innocent people. Accidentally shooting someone in the head is beginning to show a pattern. It’s always some white bystander that gets a bullet
"IF" the dope dealer is a convicted felon then he cannot own guns otherwise until convicted of a felony he has the same 2cd Amendment Rights as anyone else. The question is framed to get an emotional answer .
Drug dealers have guns: Drug users already have guns, & #DemonRATS, don't even know what our Constitution is! even the #DemonRATS who behave "occasionally",&, the *Mentally unstable*, are Already using guns…SO…Why Not? even drug users need protection form these lawless idiots! ie: #Hunter Biden?….He already had guns, for mamy Many years while *Drugging!
The illegals can carry guns and commit murders and are in drug cartels but that's ok!
Since the government approved pharmaceutical companies to push oxygen derivative drugs it made some people drug dependedd with now knowing steps to counter their dependency if
they should be treated as clean when they are considered but tested periodically to ensure so.
Leave a Comment
Leave a Comment
Can the Government Ban Guns for Drug Users?
The case, United States v. Hemani, directly challenges a provision of federal law (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)) that prohibits firearm possession by anyone who is an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.” The defendant, Ali Danial Hemani, was convicted under this law based on his gun possession alongside what the government calls his “habitual use of marijuana.”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the law, as applied to Hemani, is unconstitutional. That court found that simply being a user of an illegal drug does not automatically strip someone of their Second Amendment rights. The Trump administration appealed this decision, urging the Supreme Court to step in and uphold the federal ban.
How Does an 18th Century Right Apply to Modern Drug Use?
This case forces the justices to grapple with the historical test they established just three years ago in the landmark New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision. Authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, Bruen declared that modern gun regulations are only constitutional if they are consistent with the nation’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation” dating back to the founding era.
Applying this test to modern drug use creates a complex puzzle. As Hemani’s lawyers argued, historical gun laws often targeted carrying weapons while under the influence of alcohol, but none barred gun possession simply by regular drinkers. The core legal question is whether the government can find a historical analogue from the 18th or 19th century that justifies disarming someone based on their status as a drug user, even if they are not intoxicated while possessing the firearm.
Why is the Trump Administration Defending a Gun Ban?
The administration’s position highlights the complex intersection of gun rights and public safety. While generally supportive of Second Amendment rights, the government argues that the ban on gun possession for habitual drug users is a critical tool for fighting violent crime.
This stance echoes the Court’s ruling last year in United States v. Rahimi, where an 8-1 majority (with only Justice Thomas dissenting) upheld a federal law disarming individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders. Even under the stringent Bruen test, the Court found that historical tradition supported disarming individuals deemed dangerous. The government will likely argue that habitual drug users, like those under domestic violence orders, fall into a category of individuals historically understood to pose a heightened risk to public safety.
What Comes Next?
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in Hemani later this term, likely alongside the other pending Second Amendment case regarding concealed carry rights. A final decision is expected by early July 2026.
The outcome will provide crucial clarity on how the Bruen historical test applies to modern societal problems. It will tell us whether the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms even for those engaged in illegal drug use, or if the government retains the power to disarm individuals it deems too dangerous based on their substance use. This case is a profound test of the Constitution’s adaptability and the enduring tension between individual liberty and public safety.
Democrats wanna take our guns, now they flip-flop on drug users—total hypocrisy!