![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/EDB6F9B9-F6F2-4042-A9C5-C2EFA5D38620-198x300.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
We talked at length (some of you at GREAT length) about the form 4473 disqualifier of being An appeals court has said a federal law making it a crime for drug users to have a gun can\u2019t be used against someone based solely on their past drug use. \u00a0USA Today<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Well, a three-judge panel of the 11th District has jumped in with an\u00a0 opinion. They don’t think pot is a disqualifier either, so they oppose the DOJ.<\/p>\n The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit last week revived a Second Amendment challenge to the federal law that bars illegal drug users from owning guns. In a ruling<\/a> published on Wednesday, a three-judge panel unanimously concluded that the federal government had failed to show that policy, as applied to state-authorized medical marijuana users in Florida, is “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation”\u2014the constitutional test that the U.S. Supreme Court established in the 2022 case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen<\/em><\/a>.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n “When viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the allegations in the operative complaint do not lead to the inference that the plaintiffs are comparatively similar to either felons or dangerous individuals\u2014the two historical analogues the Federal Government offers in its attempt to meet its burden,” writes Judge Elizabeth Branch, a Donald Trump appointee, in an opinion joined by Judges Robert Luck and Gerald Tjoflat, who were appointed by Trump and Gerald Ford, respectively. “We therefore vacate the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”\u00a0Reason<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n This is precisely the kind of situation with conflicting stances that the Supreme Court is made to resolve. They have been notoriously reluctant to step into anything to do with guns in the last 50-60 years, and have had to be forced to look at basic 2nd Amendment questions, which again, they have tried to tiptoe around and weaselword\u00a0 their decisions. It’s nice that they did rule in cases like Bruen, McDonald, and Heller…when they had no choice.<\/p>\n Me, I would like to see a simple easy ruling to come out of them. Something that says:<\/p>\n Everyone has a right to self-defense, using whatever tools he deems fit for the task at hand, and is allowed to carry those means whether openly or concealed as he chooses. This right shall exist in all US States, there shall be no geographical restrictions on it, and every State shall have the same duty to allow it.<\/p>\n Short and sweet.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n *\u00a0 oh, the photo – I looked in TAH’s photo-files for the term ‘POT” and the pic above had a caption using the word ‘spot’. Close enough for me.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Hunter Biden<\/del> a drug user and being able to buy guns. To refresh your memories, the DOJ is trying to reinforce the “use pot, no guns) rule despite the 5th Circuit saying that if you’re not actuaally ON an illicit drug actively at the time of the alleged offense, you can’t be charged. So they said\u00a0 you may use pot, but as long as you’re not stoned when the popo are looking at you, you can buy\/use guns at will.\u00a0 (Bet Hunter Biden’s lawers are all over that opinion.)<\/p>\n\n