Supreme Court Addresses Marijuana Users 2A Ban More | Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News
Summary
Transcript
Today, the US Supreme Court sent a couple other cases we’ve been watching back down to be, I guess, redecided by the lower courts. It’s called the GVR. They granted certiorari, which means we’re taking the case up. They vacated the ruling of the lower court and they remanded it back to be redecided in line with a specific case. I’m going to tell you the two that I didn’t touch on earlier because I think this bear is watching because this could shake the foundation of gun control in America and this could be good.
First, I want to thank CMMG. They make a lot of tools. They’re made here in this country. Their tools come in different sizes and shapes and colors and chamberings. You pick it. They make it. Bob’s your uncle. The warranty is phenomenal. Made here in America. Buy Americans. CMMG. I can’t tell you, you know, but what I can tell you is use code GNG10 and save a ton over at CMMG. And as I take a sip of my espresso here, I’m going to remind you that at Blackout Coffee, we are doing a nice little giveaway of $1,776.
One lucky customer for the month of July will win that. Details at BlackoutCoffee.com slash GNG. Lower left hand corner of the screen, click the giveaway bubble and learn more there. So thank you for supporting Blackout Coffee. And like I said, the United States Supreme Court has sent down, we’re going to talk about one, we’ll talk about both cases, but this is the biggest one because this concerns the rights of marijuana consumers and the Second Amendment. Now, like I said, they’ve sent this case back down and GVR’ing the case. And this case is known as US v.
Daniels. And the Justice Department is now reiterating its position that cannabis use warrants a ban on firearm ownership forever, forever. Now, the Supreme Court has remanded several gun cases to their respective lower courts today in light of the ruling in the United States versus Rahimi, in which it affirmed the government’s right to restrict gun rights for a man with a restraining order for domestic violence. Since that Rahimi decision, the Department of Justice has gone like they think they are like on top of a mountain. The DOJ here is now arguing that the Supreme Court’s decision undermines the federal court’s ruling that deemed the prohibition for marijuana consumers to be unconstitutional last year.
And they’re making that as a letter to the court because it was sent back down to that court. So the DOJ is already jumping on this. And with the ruling in Rahimi, the Department of Justice is feeling emboldened. In a supplemental letter brief that I just mentioned to the United States Courts of Appeals in the Fifth Circuit, which is where the US v. Daniels case was remanded back by the Supreme Court. The Justice Department said that history supports the government’s authority to disarm categories of persons whose firearm possession would endanger themselves or others.
And consistent with that principle, Congress, they say, may temporarily disarm unlawful users of controlled substances during periods of active drug use when they present a special danger of firearm misuse. They said the Supreme Court’s decision in Rahimi also is in tension with the Fifth Circuit’s opinion in the US v. Daniels, which made some of the very methodological errors that Rahimi corrected regarding Section 922 G3. They found that unconstitutional has applied to marijuana users. Now, the district court’s judgment, they say, should be reversed. They continue, three longstanding regimes support the government’s authority to disarm those who unlawfully use illegal intoxicants, presents a heightened risk to harm to themselves or others.
Now, historical laws regulating firearm possession and used by those under the influence of alcohol, historical practices disarming the categories of individuals whose firearm possession presented a special danger to themselves or others, and historical restrictions on firearm possession by the mentally ill. They then said that the temporary prohibition on people who are current marijuana users fits neatly within the tradition of keeping firearms out of the hands of the intoxicated, those who threaten others, and the mentally ill. They also argued that the federal district court’s ruling in Daniels, again, should be reversed.
Now, this comes after Hunter Biden was convicted last week by a federal jury of violating the statute of buying and possessing a gun while an active user of crack cocaine. Interesting. Now, we know that some states have legalized marijuana, but it is still illegal federally, and it would take a literal act of Congress and a president’s signature to change that, and I don’t see that happening anytime soon. And it’s very interesting where these cases are going, because the DOJ referred back to the law that said if somebody was intoxicated, then they could be disarmed for a short period of time.
However, you check yes on the 4473. If you’re telling the truth, you’re being honest, that you’re a marijuana user, you’re a federally prohibited person. It doesn’t say, like, when did you use it? Because you would only be prohibited during that period where that person was under the influence of that narcotic. Now, the DOJ is trying to play games here. It’s not that they’re going to look to take away the rights of somebody just while they’re high, they just want you to lose that right period. Now, Garland v. Range was another case we were watching, and that had to do with whether 18 U.S.C.
922-G1, the federal statute that prohibits a person from possessing a firearm if they have been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, complies with the Second Amendment as well. Why is that a thing? Well, because some states have done end-arounds to create more prohibited people. For instance, Massachusetts. Before Governor Cadillac Deval Patrick left office, he changed the gun laws where they would look back indefinitely for people who were convicted of driving while intoxicated. In Massachusetts, it’s called operating under the influence of intoxicating liquor. And if you were ever convicted of an OUI, then you would be a federally prohibited person because he changed the laws to say that anything with the term of a potential imprisonment of a term more than a year would make you a primitive person.
And that’s misdemeanors too, so super misdemeanors, and that’s what this is talking about here. So just so you can see, here’s the official entries from the Supreme Court that came out this morning. First, you can see the case of Garland v. Range says the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, the judgment is vacated, and the cases were amended to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for further consideration in light of the United States v. Rahimi case that they decided about a week ago. And the one we’re talking about mostly in this case is United States v.
Daniels, the motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pulperis, granted the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, the judgment is vacated, and the cases were amended to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for further consideration in light of U.S. v. Rahimi. Here’s another case they remanded back because of the Rahimi decision, and that’s the United States v. Perez-Gallen. Another that was the Vincent v. Garland case. Another was, of course, the Antonioc case we discussed earlier this morning. Another is the Jackson v. United States case.
Another was the Cunningham v. United States case and the Doss v. United States case. And on top of that, they sent down a boatload of cases related to Chevron deference as well. So what the Supreme Court has done is said, basically, we have a case that we have dropped, which we believe addresses these other cases. And rather than to do each one of them individually, we’re going to grant the certiorari. We’re going to vacate those lower court decisions, send them back in lieu of the Rahimi case or the Chevron case, which was the Loper case.
So got a lot of stuff going on. And unfortunately, it seems some of the small wins are going to be overcome or overturned. And what do you think about what’s going on? Usually at the end of the Supreme Court season, if you will, the end of their semester, they do this with a lot of cases. They did this a couple years ago with a lot of gun cases. And some of those gun cases are still making their way through the system. My hope is that the Fifth Circuit and the Seventh, they don’t like punt it like the Ninth Circuit did where it goes all the way back to the original district court, that the circuit courts just take care of it right away.
We’ll see what happens. But if you want to stay in the know, I will keep you in the loop. All you got to do is hit that subscribe button down below. It’s free. It doesn’t cost you a nickel. Just helps us get to more people. And that’s what this whole goal is for this channel is to educate as many people about our right to keep and bear arms. Birthday’s coming up July 25th. I’d like to see how many subs we can get. Maybe we can get to 725,000 subscribers. It’s a little bit of a work, but it could be done if you’re viewing and you’re not subscribed, then smash that subscribe button down below.
And thanks for the love. I appreciate y’all. Be safe, stay vigilant, carry a gun to keep you, your friends, your family, your community safe. See you on the next one. [tr:trw].
See more of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News on their Public Channel and the MPN Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News channel.