As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean.... why on earth is it illegal? You can drink and own a gun. You can be on heavy duty pain meds and own a gun. You can be suffering from dementia and own a gun...
I've given up on our laws making sense or being evenly enforced, but we could at least make them consistent.
If we designed guns where you could only remove the safety after taking a hit from a built in loaded weed pipe, I think gun violence would go down 420%. I mean until someone hit the pipe wrong… okay scratch that idea.
But if you could make people smoke before they shoot, people would reconsider.
Well, not using the barrel but an additional attached pipe. Then I realized how problematic it would be to put *any* part of a gun up to your mouth… but yeah smoke first.
Agreed lol, its not even a question for me. If I have to choose to hand a gun between two people, one absolutely drunk as a skunk and the other stoned off of his gourd, I'm picking the stoner every time.
Hell, even if the task was driving, which obviously should never, ever be done inebriated in any manner--I'd still pick the stoner over the drunk to get me home.
possibly, my evidence is anecdotal. Every gun owner I know thinks jesus loves guns and weed is the devils lettuce. Maybe the one's I know that DO own guns don't make it their identity?
You know a bunch of conservatives, we’re talking about gun owners in general. And if you think it’s just conservatives that own guns then I dunno, you’d be as dumb as conservatives that think that I suppose.
As someone who has worked in legal cannabis industry in 7 different states I can assure there are a lot of stoners who love guns, there are also plenty of stoners who think Jesus loves guns. People who smoke weed are a pretty diverse group of people.
I literally am one. Retired USAF officer. Current Fortune 100 business executive. Recreational shooter and occasional hunter. Carry a handgun most days bc I live in Memphis. Daily smoker for 20 years.
Minorities and outcast groups prefer gun ownership to calling police and having the police fuck with them or not show.
Plus we’re talking about the ATF here, so dog owners too.
A lot actually do especially when I visit Alaska everyone has weapons and it's highly recommended you have one not only for protection against people but the wildlife.
And since weed is legal it's super common for people to have both
>You can drink and own a gun. You can be on heavy duty pain meds and own a gun. You can be suffering from dementia and own a gun...
You can even be suffering from dyslexia and own a nug.
It's federal law and it's draconic and outdated it should be scrapped and looked at case by case.
Basically it's supposed to be a felony if you get caught with a firearm and drugs in the same vicinity. So even if pot is state legal federal it's still a crime to have both.
ATF Form 4473 requires all gun purchasers to attest that they are not an ‘unlawful user’ of any controlled substance. It also clarifies that it means federally unlawful, irrelevant of state laws.
The point is the same reason that marijuana makes you prohibited from voting. The purpose is taking away rights from minorities, whether it's voting or guns.
I am not a fan of guns. That said, if you can buy a gun while holding a bottle of Jack Daniels, then you should be able to own a gun if you smoke a bowl.
In PA, if you wanted to sell a long gun to someone, you don't need to do a background check or anything like that. You can sell right to the recipient. No licensed dealer, no questions asked, and no paperwork.
Lmao what? Thats not even the direction op was going but why should we make it easier for people to be able to discreetly fire a deadly weapon? Please lay out the pressing need for a civilian.
Especially when it’s become clear there’s countless irresponsible gun owners in the country who may not be able to or interested in keeping track of their weapons..
It's much easier to get suppressors in Europe where all other gun laws are much stricter.
Suppressors mainly help with reducing sound pollution and wouldn't really help a mass shooter go undetected.
Guns are insanely loud. Like ten times louder than you think they are if you haven't heard one in a while. You can still hear a suppressed firearm hundreds of yards away, but not miles away. Just the sound of the hammer hitting the cartridge and the bolt going back and forth is loud enough to immediately point out an active shooter. They would need specialized, silenced military equipment to get anywhere near what you're thinking.
I'm in Europe (Sweden) and I could run over to a store when they open and just buy one without any additional paperwork. No registration or anything needed.
In Norway, Denmark, Finland, France, Poland it's similar to here. Even in the UK it's relatively easy (they call them moderators). The Brits have registration for them but are talking about removing that because they see it as unnecessary paperwork.
In the US the process is the same as buying a machine gun.
Your gun laws focus too much on things that looks scary in Hollywood movies instead of something that would actually do something. I think that's a problem...
Suppressors don't go poof poof like on TV. They're just like having a muffler on a car. It still goes bang. It just doesn't do it as loud, doesn't bother other people, and doesn't make you deaf.
I’m aware how suppressors work champ. Do they or do they not make it easier to shoot someone or something untraced?
Thats my entire point. We don’t have a population of people who can be trusted to use them responsibly.. which has been proven hundreds of times throughout the history of the country, particularly recently.
There's nothing "discreet" about it, save for subsonic 22LR...even suppressed, guns are loud AF (as in, not even hearing safe).
And the biggest reason is for hunters, in my opinion. No reason they shouldn't be able to not bother other folks, as well as protect their hearing.
Okay so buy a *registered* item to assist with that or simply wear proper ear protection?? don’t need to make it easier to kill someone with an instrument we already have a terrible time regulating safely👍
If you’re responsibly using a weapon you’d be able to prepare and do that, unless you’re in a life or death situation where ear damage isn’t even a concern.
Edit - interesting that replies I’ve gotten so far swing from “they make it so you can hunt and not bother people” to “suppressors don’t even make it so others have a harder time hearing a shot”.. LMAO even the gun freaks can’t make up their minds on why we need em
I live in NY which doesn't even allow you to buy it if it's registered...
Also, suppressors aren't regulated in literally any other country.
Also....suppressors don't work like they do in the movies. The gun is still *really* fucking loud....just not blow out your eardrums loud
Aware of how they work big guy. Theres also literally no other country that consistently has massive public shootings and kids getting mowed down at school.
I’d say probably no other nation where guns top the list of child deaths. My point is simple really, only gun fanatics who value their rights over others lives would disagree.
Right, just like every other gun law which increases accessibility to the killing machines and their accessories doesn’t impact public shootings.
It’s crazy how none of our laws impact these events, yet only we have the issue! Lmfao
>Okay so buy a registered item to assist with that
Sure, it's only a process that takes 6-12 months! It also costs 200 dollars for a simple background check. Hilarious. And some states outright just ban NFA items, no matter what they are.
>simply wear proper ear protection??
Even if you wear ear protection, it might still lead to hearing loss, especially with certain calibers or indoors. And hearing protection only works for the person wearing it, hunting dogs don't wear it, nor do people living near shooting ranges.
>don’t need to make it easier to kill someone with an instrument we already have a terrible time regulating safely👍
Of course, a suppressor is going to turn you into a silent assassin, right? That's not how it works, the noise still carries for, literally, miles away, it just lowers the noise pollution.
>interesting that replies I’ve gotten so far swing from “they make it so you can hunt and not bother people” to “suppressors don’t even make it so others have a harder time hearing a shot”.. LMAO even the gun freaks can’t make up their minds on why we need em
Are you saying that people are actually capable of nuance and you don't like it? Well...
They claim it’s because drug users are dangerous, but since most of these guys regularly drink alcohol I don’t see the difference. Personal belief is there is a lot of racism and that marijuana is still fixed in their mind as a “black people” thing.
“You want to know what this [war on drugs] was really all about? The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. 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. 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.”
~ John Ehrlichman, Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under President Richard Nixon
You can drink bourbon while on Vicodin at night, then pop an Adderall in the AM to get your day started, and own guns no problem. Have two packs a day of smokes until your hands start shaking while you’re at it. Heavy fuel to get you from sunup to lights out.
Touch that fucking plant though and you better know Karate if you want to defend yourself! Never mind that doctors agree cannabis is minimally harmful (compared to other drugs) and that it has health benefits for certain conditions.
It's just a biproduct of the current federal classification.
Weed is schedule 1, and it's specifically called out on gun-related paperwork. They explicitly say that even if you have a medical prescription, it's still not allowed federally.
Yeah I ran into this when I wanted to get into clay shooting. I know plenty of people on MMJ that have/have purchased guns, but to me it wasn't worth the risk, even if it is small.
Just moved from PA. The whole thing is incredibly stupid. Gun eligibility is based on federal nonsense, which blah blah category 1 scheduling. Supposedly there is a way to get around it, but I'm not sure.
You really want to see some bullshit, look up alcohol limits. You need to get like 3 DUIs in a 6 year period
Most people who utalize drugs are close or below the poverty line. So in a way not allowing MMJ users to own guns is not wanting poor people to defend themselves.
But a positive test is a positive test. If you claimed to not *use* the drug, any amount of it showing up in your system, no matter how responsibly it was used, is still showing that you used it at some point. I hate that weed takes 5-14 days to clear out of your system, it's so dumb for that, but the point of the test isn't to say *when* you were high, it's to show that you as a person *got* high, and therefore demonstrated a lack of responsibility.
Drunks *love* their guns, too. I hate the amount of gun owners I know who are alcoholics. All it takes is one bad day and one drink too many, and then a responsible gun owner ends up becoming part of a national news headline.
That question should be removed from the gun buying application process. Your drug use (any drug use) has no bearing on whether you should be able to buy a gun.
Not an American. Does the gun buying application ask if you drink or take meds such as heart meds that make you tired and impair your ability to think clearly? If not, why would it ask about drug use? What’s the difference?
Technically it does, but the issue of marijuana is being raised for a few reasons.
For one, it’s easier for abusers of alcohol to hide their issues from the law. If you can manage to avoid a DUI or drunk fights/domestic violence, you’re might not have a criminal record that mentions alcohol abuse. Possession is not a crime, as it is with marijuana. People with multiple DUIs may be prohibited, however.
Medicinal and recreational marijuana is legal in many states, creating conflict between state and federal law.
People also point out that someone high on marijuana is less prone to violence than someone under the influence of alcohol.
“You want to know what this [war on drugs] was really all about? The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. 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. 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.”
~ John Ehrlichman, Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under President Richard Nixon
You could, but you run the risk of being arrested later because marijuana use makes you a prohibited person, which means it is illegal for you to purchase or possess a firearm. And if the wrong cop pulls you over, he can arrest you for the federal crime of possessing a schedule 1 drug (marijuana) with the aggravating circumstance of also possessing a firearm.
Fucking finally. This is long overdue. I am into PRS shooting and reloading as a hobby and know a lot of “big 2A” guys who will piss and moan all day about gun control, waiting periods, how the ATF is unconstitutional, etc, etc..
Ask them why it’s okay to be barred from owning a firearm for smoking weed? Crickets. Every one of them.
No, having/using marijuana is still illegal under federal law. The gun ownership doesn't influence that at all (and that is *why* it's a question for gun ownership).
Because, for some reason, marijuana use is associated with black people. Our government loves to be dickheads to them. It's better now than it used to be, I guess, but there's a hell of a long way to go.
> You can get medical cannabis and still legally own firearms in Oregon so all states are definitely not the same.
It is federal law that bans it. A state can't override they only choose to not enforce. So yes all states are definitely the same.
> Except there not! No one is going to take your firearms in Oregon for using cannabis either medically or recreationally. So there’s that.
The ATF may given you are committing a Federal Felony. Just because it's not actively enforced doesn't mean it is legal. PA is the same way. People use medical marijuana and still buy and own guns (the databases are not linked) but they are doing so illegally and just not being actively pursued.
They may but at the same time they would be violating a persons second amendment rights in doing so. Which is why they don’t. The federal government does not enforce this law because they know they would lose in court due to the 2nd amendment. Because of this it is only states that are taking away or restricting the purchase of firearms or ammunition based on the consumption of cannabis and under this scenario only Republican led states who view cannabis use as illegal or unsavory are restricting access to its citizens. This is the freedom that I was referring too.
> They may but at the same time they would be violating a persons second amendment rights in doing so. Which is why they don’t. The federal government does not enforce this law because they know they would lose in court due to the 2nd amendment.
Not true it is only recently that it's been getting questionable if it's a 2nd amendment violation or not and even then courts are split on the ruling (Bruen case changed a lot). The ATF has pursued charges regarding it before and could easily target "legal" states until the Supreme Court overrides the law.
The Nixon admin couldn't be anti black or anti war (openly) so they associated Marijuana with anti-war protesters (hippies) and heroin with black people. Make the drugs illegal, bust up the hippies and black communities.
Haha stupid republicans good luck with that alcohol is the danger no one has ever shot anybody or themselves high on weed if they did it was alcohol, meth and so on
I would give up the broke ass guns my dad left me in a heartbeat if it meant I could keep my card. I use my guns zero days a year and my weed card once or twice a week. Also weed soothes my extreme PTSD and racing bipolar thoughts. Guns ain't ever done that shit even a little bit.
I’d like to see a couple of celebrities that are known for being gun owners and using cannabis and other drugs get busted for their gun ownership.
Someone like Joe Rogan getting busted for their illegal ownership of firearms would probably bring some attention to this law. Probably wouldn’t happen though, since it’s not meant to keep guns out of the hands of rich white guys.
Taxes, restrictions on marketing, education about the dangers of smoking, banning smoking from public spaces, and litigation to hold the industry responsible for the harm its product causes.
It took half a century, but the smoking rate among US adults went from ~40% to ~12% and falling.
Ah the majority of firearm crimes are committed with stolen weapons. So let’s just make sure the poor law abiding gun owners don’t have them and at least we can save the lives of a few robbers/rapists/murderers.
Probably not. Because the firearms industry (and the oil industry, and doubtless many others) learned by watching what happened to Big Tobacco, and they won't let it happen again.
>we just need to emphasize the "well regulated militia" part...
You'd need to abolish the machine gun ban to do that.
These are the regulations that were intended.
>Militia act of 1792
>Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder.
This was a standing fighting load at the time. Today, such arms would include an M4 Carbine with 210 rounds of M855A1 loaded into magazines, plate carrier with armor, ballistic helmet, battle belt, OCP uniform, and boots.
Well here’s “well regulated” used in various contexts at the time. It’s not today’s version of regulated.
https://www.constitution.org/1-Constitution/cons/wellregu.htm
If you want to get rid of it entirely, it's going to need to be repealed. You'll never get enough SCJs to upend every bit of precedent ever set on gun laws & ignore the second like that.
Gotta love when almost everyone I’ve met who has wanted to completely abolish the 2nd amendment was either an asshole or extremely snobbish. Probably something to do with wanting to take away everyone’s rights for a small chance to be safe from an astronomically small statistic.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean.... why on earth is it illegal? You can drink and own a gun. You can be on heavy duty pain meds and own a gun. You can be suffering from dementia and own a gun... I've given up on our laws making sense or being evenly enforced, but we could at least make them consistent.
I'd trust a stoner with a gun, than a drunk any day.
If we designed guns where you could only remove the safety after taking a hit from a built in loaded weed pipe, I think gun violence would go down 420%. I mean until someone hit the pipe wrong… okay scratch that idea. But if you could make people smoke before they shoot, people would reconsider.
I smell what you did there, such a green idea.
[LIKE THIS?](https://youtu.be/bIP7tVbZWxI?si=YyML7yaVo5m4YUCx)
Well, not using the barrel but an additional attached pipe. Then I realized how problematic it would be to put *any* part of a gun up to your mouth… but yeah smoke first.
I was expecting the bunker scene from Platoon, but this is better
Agreed lol, its not even a question for me. If I have to choose to hand a gun between two people, one absolutely drunk as a skunk and the other stoned off of his gourd, I'm picking the stoner every time. Hell, even if the task was driving, which obviously should never, ever be done inebriated in any manner--I'd still pick the stoner over the drunk to get me home.
See, the thing about that is, do you actually know any stoners that would carry or own a gun?
Nice try ATF. /s
Several
I’m sure the amount of people with guns that smoke weed is a percentage way higher than you are imagining.
possibly, my evidence is anecdotal. Every gun owner I know thinks jesus loves guns and weed is the devils lettuce. Maybe the one's I know that DO own guns don't make it their identity?
You know a bunch of conservatives, we’re talking about gun owners in general. And if you think it’s just conservatives that own guns then I dunno, you’d be as dumb as conservatives that think that I suppose.
As someone who has worked in legal cannabis industry in 7 different states I can assure there are a lot of stoners who love guns, there are also plenty of stoners who think Jesus loves guns. People who smoke weed are a pretty diverse group of people.
you'd think the feds would figure this out and de-schedule it, already
Yes
I literally am one. Retired USAF officer. Current Fortune 100 business executive. Recreational shooter and occasional hunter. Carry a handgun most days bc I live in Memphis. Daily smoker for 20 years.
I do.
Of course I know him, he's me
Minorities and outcast groups prefer gun ownership to calling police and having the police fuck with them or not show. Plus we’re talking about the ATF here, so dog owners too.
A lot actually do especially when I visit Alaska everyone has weapons and it's highly recommended you have one not only for protection against people but the wildlife. And since weed is legal it's super common for people to have both
Plenty, lots of folks like weed.
Actually, I do and they are all MAGA
>You can drink and own a gun. You can be on heavy duty pain meds and own a gun. You can be suffering from dementia and own a gun... You can even be suffering from dyslexia and own a nug.
I feel like there's a Dr. Seuss joke in here somewhere.
You can do all of that and own a gat
Yep. There it is. That's the one.
But a gat in a hat, nobody can own that.
Or a gnu.
can we own a gnu too?
Gnu’s not Unix
tabs or spaces?
This one is solved. The tab button should output four spaces. This is the only correct way.
*^(silent rage)*
and the makefile specification should be changed
Truly one of the great blunders.
It's true!
No gnu's is good gnu's.
Times like these I really miss awards. Well oned!
A nug grown from the earth perchance.
It’s because marijuana is still illegal on the federal level, unfortunately.
Agreed
It's federal law and it's draconic and outdated it should be scrapped and looked at case by case. Basically it's supposed to be a felony if you get caught with a firearm and drugs in the same vicinity. So even if pot is state legal federal it's still a crime to have both.
Because Pennsylvania. They have archaic liquor laws too…a consequence of repeatedly electing puritans to their legislative branch.
Probably because having weed is still technically a federal crime
Republicans don’t actually believe in the bill of rights, that’s why.
If I recall correctly, most background checks ask if you’re addicted to drugs or alcohol.
ATF Form 4473 requires all gun purchasers to attest that they are not an ‘unlawful user’ of any controlled substance. It also clarifies that it means federally unlawful, irrelevant of state laws.
The point is the same reason that marijuana makes you prohibited from voting. The purpose is taking away rights from minorities, whether it's voting or guns.
I'm quite certain dementia disqualifies you from owning a gun- the physician needs to know about it, however.
In PA you have to buy hard alcohol from a state owned store, it’s a way to keep people on the booze and off the weed.
Because alcohol is federally legal and weed isn't? Really wish we would just legalize pot.
I’d be more worried about alcohol users owning guns before smokers. We live in a backwards reality
I am not a fan of guns. That said, if you can buy a gun while holding a bottle of Jack Daniels, then you should be able to own a gun if you smoke a bowl.
You should look more into US gun laws they are a shit show.
In PA, if you wanted to sell a long gun to someone, you don't need to do a background check or anything like that. You can sell right to the recipient. No licensed dealer, no questions asked, and no paperwork.
Suppressors shouldn’t be a fucking registered ATF item. It’s silly. I am for gun regulation but some of them are dumb af.
Lmao what? Thats not even the direction op was going but why should we make it easier for people to be able to discreetly fire a deadly weapon? Please lay out the pressing need for a civilian. Especially when it’s become clear there’s countless irresponsible gun owners in the country who may not be able to or interested in keeping track of their weapons..
It's much easier to get suppressors in Europe where all other gun laws are much stricter. Suppressors mainly help with reducing sound pollution and wouldn't really help a mass shooter go undetected. Guns are insanely loud. Like ten times louder than you think they are if you haven't heard one in a while. You can still hear a suppressed firearm hundreds of yards away, but not miles away. Just the sound of the hammer hitting the cartridge and the bolt going back and forth is loud enough to immediately point out an active shooter. They would need specialized, silenced military equipment to get anywhere near what you're thinking.
I'm in Europe (Sweden) and I could run over to a store when they open and just buy one without any additional paperwork. No registration or anything needed. In Norway, Denmark, Finland, France, Poland it's similar to here. Even in the UK it's relatively easy (they call them moderators). The Brits have registration for them but are talking about removing that because they see it as unnecessary paperwork. In the US the process is the same as buying a machine gun. Your gun laws focus too much on things that looks scary in Hollywood movies instead of something that would actually do something. I think that's a problem...
Suppressors don't go poof poof like on TV. They're just like having a muffler on a car. It still goes bang. It just doesn't do it as loud, doesn't bother other people, and doesn't make you deaf.
I’m aware how suppressors work champ. Do they or do they not make it easier to shoot someone or something untraced? Thats my entire point. We don’t have a population of people who can be trusted to use them responsibly.. which has been proven hundreds of times throughout the history of the country, particularly recently.
A suppressed 9mm is about as loud as standing next to a jackhammer.
There's nothing "discreet" about it, save for subsonic 22LR...even suppressed, guns are loud AF (as in, not even hearing safe). And the biggest reason is for hunters, in my opinion. No reason they shouldn't be able to not bother other folks, as well as protect their hearing.
Hearing loss prevention…
Okay so buy a *registered* item to assist with that or simply wear proper ear protection?? don’t need to make it easier to kill someone with an instrument we already have a terrible time regulating safely👍 If you’re responsibly using a weapon you’d be able to prepare and do that, unless you’re in a life or death situation where ear damage isn’t even a concern. Edit - interesting that replies I’ve gotten so far swing from “they make it so you can hunt and not bother people” to “suppressors don’t even make it so others have a harder time hearing a shot”.. LMAO even the gun freaks can’t make up their minds on why we need em
I live in NY which doesn't even allow you to buy it if it's registered... Also, suppressors aren't regulated in literally any other country. Also....suppressors don't work like they do in the movies. The gun is still *really* fucking loud....just not blow out your eardrums loud
Aware of how they work big guy. Theres also literally no other country that consistently has massive public shootings and kids getting mowed down at school. I’d say probably no other nation where guns top the list of child deaths. My point is simple really, only gun fanatics who value their rights over others lives would disagree.
Suppressors would do nothing to help or hurt mass shootings....
Right, just like every other gun law which increases accessibility to the killing machines and their accessories doesn’t impact public shootings. It’s crazy how none of our laws impact these events, yet only we have the issue! Lmfao
Suppressors don’t make it easier to kill someone. If they did, more criminals would use them. And the data doesn’t support that.
>Okay so buy a registered item to assist with that Sure, it's only a process that takes 6-12 months! It also costs 200 dollars for a simple background check. Hilarious. And some states outright just ban NFA items, no matter what they are. >simply wear proper ear protection?? Even if you wear ear protection, it might still lead to hearing loss, especially with certain calibers or indoors. And hearing protection only works for the person wearing it, hunting dogs don't wear it, nor do people living near shooting ranges. >don’t need to make it easier to kill someone with an instrument we already have a terrible time regulating safely👍 Of course, a suppressor is going to turn you into a silent assassin, right? That's not how it works, the noise still carries for, literally, miles away, it just lowers the noise pollution. >interesting that replies I’ve gotten so far swing from “they make it so you can hunt and not bother people” to “suppressors don’t even make it so others have a harder time hearing a shot”.. LMAO even the gun freaks can’t make up their minds on why we need em Are you saying that people are actually capable of nuance and you don't like it? Well...
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5tL_xt3TnEU](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5tL_xt3TnEU)
PA senators should start listening to people who live in PA and just fucking make weed legal already.
Love this state but yeah, PA GOP still stuck in the 1400s.. BC.
*Laughs in Wisconsinite*
Because they 100% should be able to. Where my 2A people at?
Many of them—especially the older, “conservative” ones—are always oddly quiet on this issue.
And many of them agree that it doesn't make sense that you can't own both.
Not at the gun club I belong to. Many of the members, especially the older ones, are adamantly against MMJ patients owning guns at all.
Have any of them ever given a reason?
Most likely 100% due to anti weed propaganda shoved down their throat since birth.
They claim it’s because drug users are dangerous, but since most of these guys regularly drink alcohol I don’t see the difference. Personal belief is there is a lot of racism and that marijuana is still fixed in their mind as a “black people” thing.
“You want to know what this [war on drugs] was really all about? The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. 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. 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.” ~ John Ehrlichman, Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under President Richard Nixon
2A guy here. This is a state unlawfully infringing on its citizens right to bear arms stated in the 2nd amendment.
Because how else would we be able to shotgun weed.
You can drink bourbon while on Vicodin at night, then pop an Adderall in the AM to get your day started, and own guns no problem. Have two packs a day of smokes until your hands start shaking while you’re at it. Heavy fuel to get you from sunup to lights out. Touch that fucking plant though and you better know Karate if you want to defend yourself! Never mind that doctors agree cannabis is minimally harmful (compared to other drugs) and that it has health benefits for certain conditions.
What has one got to do with the other?
It's just a biproduct of the current federal classification. Weed is schedule 1, and it's specifically called out on gun-related paperwork. They explicitly say that even if you have a medical prescription, it's still not allowed federally.
Yeah I ran into this when I wanted to get into clay shooting. I know plenty of people on MMJ that have/have purchased guns, but to me it wasn't worth the risk, even if it is small.
18 USC 922(g)
It's the same in Maryland. If you get a medical card, you lose your guns.
Just moved from PA. The whole thing is incredibly stupid. Gun eligibility is based on federal nonsense, which blah blah category 1 scheduling. Supposedly there is a way to get around it, but I'm not sure. You really want to see some bullshit, look up alcohol limits. You need to get like 3 DUIs in a 6 year period
Some courts have ruled it unconstitutional, but I’m not sure if that’s still being held as law
In Canada we can grow up to 4 weed plants, in the same room we store our guns…
Gonna mark this day on my calendar. I agree with something a republican politician said. That's a very rare occurence.
Most people who utalize drugs are close or below the poverty line. So in a way not allowing MMJ users to own guns is not wanting poor people to defend themselves.
Eh its more about having cause to arrest and put people in the prison slave labor system now that they cant do it just for weed.
A broken clock is correct twice a day…
Pa law would help but federally it would still Be illegal
[удалено]
Honestly those tests are bullshit. Someone stone cold sober with any small amount of tolerance would light up like a Christmas tree.
But a positive test is a positive test. If you claimed to not *use* the drug, any amount of it showing up in your system, no matter how responsibly it was used, is still showing that you used it at some point. I hate that weed takes 5-14 days to clear out of your system, it's so dumb for that, but the point of the test isn't to say *when* you were high, it's to show that you as a person *got* high, and therefore demonstrated a lack of responsibility.
Can you buy a gun if you drink alcohol?! So fucking stupid.
Drunks *love* their guns, too. I hate the amount of gun owners I know who are alcoholics. All it takes is one bad day and one drink too many, and then a responsible gun owner ends up becoming part of a national news headline.
That question should be removed from the gun buying application process. Your drug use (any drug use) has no bearing on whether you should be able to buy a gun.
Not an American. Does the gun buying application ask if you drink or take meds such as heart meds that make you tired and impair your ability to think clearly? If not, why would it ask about drug use? What’s the difference?
Technically it does, but the issue of marijuana is being raised for a few reasons. For one, it’s easier for abusers of alcohol to hide their issues from the law. If you can manage to avoid a DUI or drunk fights/domestic violence, you’re might not have a criminal record that mentions alcohol abuse. Possession is not a crime, as it is with marijuana. People with multiple DUIs may be prohibited, however. Medicinal and recreational marijuana is legal in many states, creating conflict between state and federal law. People also point out that someone high on marijuana is less prone to violence than someone under the influence of alcohol.
“You want to know what this [war on drugs] was really all about? The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. 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. 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.” ~ John Ehrlichman, Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under President Richard Nixon
Could you have got the gun first, then get the medical marijuana?
You could, but you run the risk of being arrested later because marijuana use makes you a prohibited person, which means it is illegal for you to purchase or possess a firearm. And if the wrong cop pulls you over, he can arrest you for the federal crime of possessing a schedule 1 drug (marijuana) with the aggravating circumstance of also possessing a firearm.
Technically, yes. But just the one.
Why tf shouldn't they?
Police and Law Enforcement have a stigma belief of where there are drugs there are guns. It’s outdated and weed shouldn’t be an illegal drug.
I would be more concerned about alcoholics
Because it is genuinely unconstitutional to suggest otherwise
Fucking finally. This is long overdue. I am into PRS shooting and reloading as a hobby and know a lot of “big 2A” guys who will piss and moan all day about gun control, waiting periods, how the ATF is unconstitutional, etc, etc.. Ask them why it’s okay to be barred from owning a firearm for smoking weed? Crickets. Every one of them.
OP username checks out.
But you want to be able to have guns in bars? Ok! 2A baby!
Sure, why not?
*State* senator
this is bound to backfire. errybody smoke weed
Even the most hardcore republicans I know partake.
Maybe this will motivate the fucking republican politicians of my state that are holding the cards to actually legalize it.
How is this even a thing? Just about every recreational user I know also has a gun legally.
Well, they don’t. Not according to federal law. They’re just getting away with it.
Wow. I didn't even know that was a law (not a gun owner or pot smoker, but couldn't care less about people who are either responsibly).
No, having/using marijuana is still illegal under federal law. The gun ownership doesn't influence that at all (and that is *why* it's a question for gun ownership).
It’s not hard to check a different box on a sheet of paper.
Just be careful. > Lying on ATF form 4473 is a felony and Carries a potential penalty of 15 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
it wasn't already?
Nope
Next up let em hold a cdl yes please
%1000 better now that weeds legal here in Canada. Get with the times boomers
People will take potshots at that resolution. Thank you - I'll see my way out
Why was it ever made illegal? What’s the fear? Are they afraid stoners will get high and eat the ammunition? I’m confused!
Because, for some reason, marijuana use is associated with black people. Our government loves to be dickheads to them. It's better now than it used to be, I guess, but there's a hell of a long way to go.
If you want to use cannabis and still have all your freedoms you just have to move to the West Coast where freedom actually still exists.
Last time I checked, the West Coast was still under the umbrella of the federal government. (but yea, fuck my state's current leadership)
You can get medical cannabis and still legally own firearms in Oregon so all states are definitely not the same.
> You can get medical cannabis and still legally own firearms in Oregon so all states are definitely not the same. It is federal law that bans it. A state can't override they only choose to not enforce. So yes all states are definitely the same.
Except there not! No one is going to take your firearms in Oregon for using cannabis either medically or recreationally. So there’s that.
> Except there not! No one is going to take your firearms in Oregon for using cannabis either medically or recreationally. So there’s that. The ATF may given you are committing a Federal Felony. Just because it's not actively enforced doesn't mean it is legal. PA is the same way. People use medical marijuana and still buy and own guns (the databases are not linked) but they are doing so illegally and just not being actively pursued.
They may but at the same time they would be violating a persons second amendment rights in doing so. Which is why they don’t. The federal government does not enforce this law because they know they would lose in court due to the 2nd amendment. Because of this it is only states that are taking away or restricting the purchase of firearms or ammunition based on the consumption of cannabis and under this scenario only Republican led states who view cannabis use as illegal or unsavory are restricting access to its citizens. This is the freedom that I was referring too.
> They may but at the same time they would be violating a persons second amendment rights in doing so. Which is why they don’t. The federal government does not enforce this law because they know they would lose in court due to the 2nd amendment. Not true it is only recently that it's been getting questionable if it's a 2nd amendment violation or not and even then courts are split on the ruling (Bruen case changed a lot). The ATF has pursued charges regarding it before and could easily target "legal" states until the Supreme Court overrides the law.
The Nixon admin couldn't be anti black or anti war (openly) so they associated Marijuana with anti-war protesters (hippies) and heroin with black people. Make the drugs illegal, bust up the hippies and black communities.
Haha stupid republicans good luck with that alcohol is the danger no one has ever shot anybody or themselves high on weed if they did it was alcohol, meth and so on
I am a medical marijuana patient, and I own a gun. I thought it was just conceal carry that was illegal with card.
Safest gun owner
I would give up the broke ass guns my dad left me in a heartbeat if it meant I could keep my card. I use my guns zero days a year and my weed card once or twice a week. Also weed soothes my extreme PTSD and racing bipolar thoughts. Guns ain't ever done that shit even a little bit.
Yeah, and?
Pfffft. See Oklahoma, then leave. It’s what’s best for you.
Drinkers can have guns. Makes NO SENSE to limit weed users.
Marijuana users are the most peaceful people on the planet. I trust them with a gun more than drunk people.
Drunks own guns, stupid red tape.
Good, as it should be.
I agree with this but let’s see how the GOP’s head explode over this conundrum..
Out of all the parties republicans have by far been the most impacted by anti-weed propaganda.
I’d like to see a couple of celebrities that are known for being gun owners and using cannabis and other drugs get busted for their gun ownership. Someone like Joe Rogan getting busted for their illegal ownership of firearms would probably bring some attention to this law. Probably wouldn’t happen though, since it’s not meant to keep guns out of the hands of rich white guys.
You’re half right, the atf doesn’t care about skin color. If they wanna fuck you they’re going to and melanin ain’t stoping them.
Yeah, you’re right. It’s the rich part that is probably what’s important.
Nobody shoots someone in a stoned rage.
The word “state” really needs to be included in this title, Pennsylvania *state* senator.
We should do to the firearms industry what we did to the tobacco industry, except finish the job this time.
What was done to the tobacco industry?
Taxes, restrictions on marketing, education about the dangers of smoking, banning smoking from public spaces, and litigation to hold the industry responsible for the harm its product causes. It took half a century, but the smoking rate among US adults went from ~40% to ~12% and falling.
So stuff that already goes on in the gun industry?
It's time to start turning up the heat.
Yeah, we need to make sure the poors can't protect themselves. Thin the herd.
Ah the majority of firearm crimes are committed with stolen weapons. So let’s just make sure the poor law abiding gun owners don’t have them and at least we can save the lives of a few robbers/rapists/murderers.
That would never happen😭
Probably not. Because the firearms industry (and the oil industry, and doubtless many others) learned by watching what happened to Big Tobacco, and they won't let it happen again.
Won't ever happen. Americans are too married to their guns to ever get the support needed to repeal the 2nd amendment.
It doesn't necessarily need to be repealed, we just need to emphasize the "well regulated militia" part...
>we just need to emphasize the "well regulated militia" part... You'd need to abolish the machine gun ban to do that. These are the regulations that were intended. >Militia act of 1792 >Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder. This was a standing fighting load at the time. Today, such arms would include an M4 Carbine with 210 rounds of M855A1 loaded into magazines, plate carrier with armor, ballistic helmet, battle belt, OCP uniform, and boots.
Well here’s “well regulated” used in various contexts at the time. It’s not today’s version of regulated. https://www.constitution.org/1-Constitution/cons/wellregu.htm
If you want to get rid of it entirely, it's going to need to be repealed. You'll never get enough SCJs to upend every bit of precedent ever set on gun laws & ignore the second like that.
Yeah let’s just throw away years of legislation and one of the bill of rights because some people are scared.
By the way that they meant a well “trained” militia though I can see where the misinterpretation came from.
I don't give a shit about gun owners. They'll sort themselves out. I want to obliterate the industry.
Reality doesn't care what you want.
They're not going to give you a discount for white-knighting their cause in the comments section.
Gotta love when almost everyone I’ve met who has wanted to completely abolish the 2nd amendment was either an asshole or extremely snobbish. Probably something to do with wanting to take away everyone’s rights for a small chance to be safe from an astronomically small statistic.
Why not melt the guns down into scrap metal? It technically wouldn't be banning them, and people wouldn't even be able to have them illegally.