BREAKING: The Supreme Court agrees to hear three new cases, including a challenge to the constitutionality of a federal law that prohibits drug addicts from possessing firearms (United States v. Hemani, No. 24-1234). #SCOTUShttps://t.co/q7BCaSuheo pic.twitter.com/Ev56B6BWPm

— Katie Buehler (@bykatiebuehler) October 20, 2025

"Shall not be infringed…." ?


I believe world's smartest man Hunter Biden was convicted of this, right?

Quote:

---

Issue: Whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3), the federal statute that prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who "is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance," violates the Second Amendment as applied to respondent.

---

Oral arguments this spring!

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Letting someone who is constantly methed up to legally posses a gun is not a good idea.

And I'm about as pro-2nd Amendment as one can find.

---

What about someone who uses cannabis on occasion? If anyone supports banning these people from owning guns it would be ultimate hypocrisy to not ban anyone who ever has an alcoholic beverage.

This is pretty vague and open to interpretation right here...

Quote:

---

who "is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance,"

---

---

There needs to be clarification because there is a huge difference in someone who might smoke weed on occasion, or has a legit medical use for it, and someone using hard drugs like meth or crack, but I doubt Congress is capable of doing their job and writing better laws.

No. The government doesn't get to take away my God-given rights because I take a gummy every night and/or take a few hits from a joint. Especially when that same law is being passed by a bunch of hypocritical jackasses who will go home tonight and pour themselves several glasses of liquor.

I really wanted Hunter Biden's case to go before the Supreme Court. There is so much else they could have locked that man up for. However, charging him for not bearing witness against himself on an application is a violation of the 5th amendment, imo. This should have been ruled on by the Supreme Court; instead, the corrupt Biden admin just gave him a 15 year pardon.

Rapier108 said:

---

Letting someone who is constantly methed up to legally posses a gun is not a good idea.

And I'm about as pro-2nd Amendment as one can find.

---

It's definitely not a good idea, but "shall not be infringed unless it's a good idea" isn't exactly workable!


"Unlawful user" is too low, a bar in my opinion to strip people of their rights!

I imagine the number of suicides, accidental deaths and murders by firearm are far more prevalent among drunks than couch locked stoners.

Pursuant to the strict scrutiny standard (the highest on constitutional issues), the state must prove that the law doesn't infringe on a fundamental right. If it does, the government has to show the law is narrowly tailored and least prohibitive way to solve a compelling issue.

Im Gipper said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Letting someone who is constantly methed up to legally posses a gun is not a good idea.

And I'm about as pro-2nd Amendment as one can find.

---

It's definitely not a good idea, but "shall not be infringed unless it's a good idea" isn't exactly workable!


"Unlawful user" is too low, a bar in my opinion to strip people of their rights!

---

We already ban felons from owning firearms as well as illegal aliens, visitors on visas, and people who have been judged to be mentally deficient (the latter is why Laura Loomer is prohibited from owning guns).

There are limits on almost everything. I cannot threaten to kill the President or other elected officials, nor can I con you out of money, commit perjury, stand on the corner and scream profanities, publicly display a porn video for all to see, threaten to commit a mass shooting, etc. and then claim it is "free speech" when I get arrested.

Quote:

---

We already ban felons from owning firearms as well as illegal aliens, visitors on visas, and people who have been judged to be mentally deficient (the latter is why Laura Loomer is prohibited from owning guns).

---

Well the that case, any restriction must be okay because "we already do it other places"


There's quite an enormous gap between convicted of a felony and taking a gummy, don't you think?

Rapier108 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Letting someone who is constantly methed up to legally posses a gun is not a good idea.

And I'm about as pro-2nd Amendment as one can find.

---

It's definitely not a good idea, but "shall not be infringed unless it's a good idea" isn't exactly workable!


"Unlawful user" is too low, a bar in my opinion to strip people of their rights!

---

We already ban felons from owning firearms as well as illegal aliens, visitors on visas, and people who have been judged to be mentally deficient (the latter is why Laura Loomer is prohibited from owning guns).

There are limits on almost everything. I cannot threaten to kill the President or other elected officials, nor can I con you out of money, commit perjury, stand on the corner and scream profanities, publicly display a porn video for all to see, threaten to commit a mass shooting, etc. and then claim it is "free speech" when I get arrested.

---

And there is no constitutional rationale for that feelings-based bull**** . Even if SCotUS says there is. Some of us can read plain ass English.

Do you not have to be of sound mind and body to possess firearms? I get the slippery slope but most mass shooting victims would be alive if not for radical leftists who are overly medicated and drugged up beyond reason.

Muy said:

---

Do you not have to be of sound mind and body to possess firearms? I get the slippery slope but most mass shooting victims would be alive if not for radical leftists who are overly medicated and drugged up beyond reason.

---

Prove you are of sound mind and body to have your constitutional rights!!?!!

NO THANKS!!!

Bruen decided we don't have to show proper cause, so no way we have to prove we are of sound mind!

BigRobSA said:

---

"shall not be infringed"

not "yeah, just a little bit of infringement"

Pretty clear English

---

MAGAts just want to disarm anyone not in the cult.

But you ain't taking away my gun store next to the drive through liquor store!!

Do drug addicts actually care about gun laws?

True blue meth addicts down own anything much less guns. Anything that doesn't directly facilitate aquiring more meth (car, gas, one set of clothes, etc...) is sold to get more meth.

Rapier108 said:

---

Letting someone who is constantly methed up to legally posses a gun is not a good idea.

And I'm about as pro-2nd Amendment as one can find.

---

That goes for the town drunks as well.

Im Gipper said:

---

BREAKING: The Supreme Court agrees to hear three new cases, including a challenge to the constitutionality of a federal law that prohibits drug addicts from possessing firearms (United States v. Hemani, No. 24-1234). #SCOTUShttps://t.co/q7BCaSuheo pic.twitter.com/Ev56B6BWPm

— Katie Buehler (@bykatiebuehler) October 20, 2025

"Shall not be infringed…." ?


I believe world's smartest man Hunter Biden was convicted of this, right?

Quote:

---

Issue: Whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3), the federal statute that prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who "is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance," violates the Second Amendment as applied to respondent.

---

Oral arguments this spring!

---

Indeed it was. Certain people are going to have a fit when it results in Biden's conviction being overturned.

Another great thread to distinguish the true conservatives from the right wing republicans!


Shall not be infringed!

Quote:

---

Certain people are going to have a fit when it results in Biden's conviction being overturned.

---

I'd wager that never happens. He was pardoned. Why waste time and money trying to get it "overturned."?

Ah, forgot about that.

oral arguments were today.

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch just torched the government’s position.🔥

Noting that many Founding Fathers ran on rum and whiskey, Gorsuch also said that they would have scoffed at the idea that the Second Amendment would have disarmed them. https://t.co/g06pifkiK3 pic.twitter.com/MBIMm9Yeua

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) March 2, 2026

Quote:

---

can ask whether the habitual drunkard statutes are sufficiently -- how and why sufficiently analogous. One could also ask, though, more basically whether this defendant would qualify as a habitual user, and I want to explore that before we lose track of it. Habitual drunkard, the American Temperance Society back in the day said eight shots of whiskey a day only made you an occasional drunkard. (Laughter.) JUSTICE GORSUCH: We have to remember the founding era. If you want to invoke the founding era, to be a habitual drunkard, you had to do double that, okay? John Adams took a tankard of hard cider with his breakfast every day. James Madison reportedly drank a pint of whiskey every day. Thomas Jefferson said he wasn't much a user of alcohol, he only had three or four glasses of wine a night, okay? Are they all habitual drunkards who would be properly disarmed for life under your theory?

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Letting someone who is constantly methed up to legally posses a gun is not a good idea.

And I'm about as pro-2nd Amendment as one can find.

---

Yeah…I don't think you are.

But I do understand and respect where you're coming from.

the person in this case is not "constantly methed up"

Rapier108 said:

---

Letting someone who is constantly methed up to legally posses a gun is not a good idea.

And I'm about as pro-2nd Amendment as one can find.

---

OK, define "methed up".

Or, better yet, let some they/them in government define "methed up" in order for they/them to take your guns.

Well, judge, he is on record to have failed a drug test 40 years ago. I need to take his gun away.

BMX Bandit said:

---

the person in this case is not "constantly methed up"

---

Anyone else read this in a Mike Tyson voice?

If you don't want meth heads buying guns, put them in prison

Does taking hormone treatments to make a male a female (in theory only) account as drugs? asking for my neighbors uncle

fullback44 said:

---

Does taking hormone treatments to make a male a female (in theory only) account as drugs? asking for my neighbors uncle

---

are they using it unlawfully?