I knew a career, retired, cop and he once told me “I never once rolled up to a domestic dispute where there was a bong smoking on the table and everyone was stoned. Alcohol, however, pretty much every damn time.”
Good, it’s absurd to take away someone’s gun rights just because they smoke marijuana.
And fundamentally Anti-Constitutional.
Nowhere is there anything supporting this idea - rights aren’t conditional. I even have an issue with rights that are curtailed by a felony conviction. What logic supports this? None.
The logic where it says “well-regulated”?
I may actually end up owning a gun someday if it makes it through the Supreme Court. Although I think I could still legally 3d print one.
FYI: possession is illegal if you’re a marijuana user, regardless of how you acquire the firearm.
Unless you’re in the 5th circuit which has some good precedent in your favor.
For sure, I just wanted to provide clarification because it would appear they thought current law only prevented purchase.
It’s a question on the buyer questionnaire. If you admit to smoking weed, they won’t even sell you the gun.
