4 ms·

US Supreme Court drug users cannot be prohibited from firearms [pdf]

SilverElfin 4mo ago
They also need to invalidate, with jail time for legislators and governors, all the flagrantly unconstitutional gun control laws in blue states. A constitutional right is a constitutional right.
- chomp 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  - strideashort 4mo ago
    Which part of “shall not be infringed” is hard to parse, exactly? The question is not if you agree with it or not, the question is, if the constitution matters at all. If your position is that constitution should be overridden by contemporary narratives as government sees fit, I guess that is a valid position, but then accept that your position is one which advocates for government totalitarianism without constitutional constraints. It’s quite simple.
    - sophacles 4mo ago
      Which part of "a well regulated militia" is hard to parse exactly? The right to bear arms is the subordinate clause to the purpose of a well regulated militia. Since the purpose of that militia is clearly defined as "being necessary for the security of the State", it seems to me that the regulating body is the State. Seems to me that the right to bear arms is limited to circumstances when the State itself is under threat. It seems to me that anyone having a gun in their home when the state is not under attack is an open question not covered directly by "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed". But that's because I'm looking at all the words of the actual amendment. I guess your position is that "only randomly selected phrases from the constitution matter if they help me get what I want, whole sentences and the whole document don't actually matter".
      - NoImmatureAdHom 4mo ago
        I remember the word "regulated" back in the day does not mean "regulated" like the FDA regulates foods, it means "regulated" like we still use it for regulating a mechanical watch. "To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning."
        sophacles 4mo ago
        And you regulate a militia by making sure all the bits work together, for instance by standardizing weapons and ammo. This is also a great argument for licensing - proving that you know how to properly work and use a gun seems like perfect militia regulation (in the proper functioning sense).
      - strideashort 4mo ago
        No it’s not. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, _because_ a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State.
        sophacles 4mo ago
        What an absurd thing to say. You just made my point - a well regulated militia vital to the amendment. So why in your vast wisdom are you opposed to regulations associated with a regulated militia?
        strideashort 4mo ago
        Well, the amendment is definitely ambiguous hence all these discussions. And everyone interprets it to their liking. Do I think the government needs internal counterforce? Absolutely and there are plenty of countries today to see why. Do I think it’s great that every nutjob has a gun? Well no, I don’t. I am not saying that the amendment is great, but I don’t believe the absolute right to bear arms was intended. That said, it could very well be that the authors did not see it coming that _anyone_ could have a gun, because that was most probably not the case back then. And perhaps here today’s liberal thinking hits the historic context. Last but not least, one interpretation of “regulated” is this. I am not saying it is what was intended, but lots of people argue that: "Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight." Also, the absolute right is the _precursor_ anyway, it is given such that militia can be formed, and the way the militia is organized is not a condition to the right. But admittedly, it is not clear to contemporary reader what they meant.
- stymaar 4mo ago
  Read the second amendment: the constitutional right is about “A well regulated Militia”.
  - jpcfl 4mo ago
    "Well regulated" refers to their ability to shoot straight, and a militia is a civilian force. This language is about civilians being capable of handling weapons.
  - sparrish 4mo ago
    Keep reading... "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" You can't have a citizen's militia without an armed populace. If 'the people' don't have guns, you don't have a militia.
    - lobsterthief 4mo ago
      Yes, again, as part of a well-regulated militia…
      - SilverElfin 4mo ago
        No the grammar of the sentence is clear. The right is granted unconditionally. The explanation about a militia is not restricting the right.
        stymaar 4mo ago
        > No the grammar of the sentence is clear. I love when random internet people claim “this is obvious” about a topic that has caused unlimited controversies among jurists for the past two hundred years… (And the current jurisprudence is clearly against you on that whole topic, as demonstrated by those blue states laws that have not been overturned for being unconstitutional…)
  - strideashort 4mo ago
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. It’s about the right. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, _because_ a well regulated Militia, is necessary to the security of a free State. The point is to prevent the state from monopolizing violence, simple as.
- vitally3643 4mo ago
  Clearly you haven't actually read and understood the constitution.
- evil-olive 4mo ago
  > with jail time for legislators and governors uh-huh. what provision in the Constitution authorizes this, exactly? is there anything in contemporaneous writings (Federalist Papers, for example) where someone advocated that a reasonable separation of powers would be "Article 3 judges should have the power to send legislators to jail as a side-effect of ruling that a law is unconstitutional"? you can argue about the 2nd Amendment all you want, that's one of the oldest pastimes on the internet. but arguing that legislators should be thrown in jail for passing laws you don't like is flashing a big neon "I'm a crank" sign.
  - SilverElfin 4mo ago
    The constitution is the highest law of the land. Violating it has consequences. They should be enforced. > but arguing that legislators should be thrown in jail for passing laws you don't like is flashing a big neon "I'm a crank" sign Ad hominem aside, this is equivalent to “We should have laws but they should be selectively meaningless”
    - evil-olive 4mo ago
      > The constitution is the highest law of the land. Violating it has consequences. They should be enforced. yeah, the consequences are that the law in question gets overturned. you're not arguing for enforcing existing consequences, you're trying to make up a whole new set of consequences. people get extremely emotional about the topic of firearms, so let's take what you're saying and apply it to a different context, and hopefully you can understand how ludicrous it is. FDR signed an executive order [0] for internment of American citizens of Japanese ancestry. it was challenged in a case that went to the Supreme Court [1]. SCOTUS upheld that executive order as constitutional. but let's imagine it had gone the other way, and been struck down as unconstitutional. with the "consequences" you're proposing, a decision striking down EO 9066 would also imply President FDR must go to jail, wouldn't it? after all, he violated the Constitution. that is an insane outcome - a 5-4 SCOTUS vote could send a President to jail? the Constitution clearly lays out methods of punishing elected officials - impeachment and possible removal by Congress. in your zeal to defend one tiny sentence of the Constitution, you're inventing out of whole cloth a completely separate way of punishing elected officials, one which would itself be unconstitutional. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States
- mcphage 4mo ago
  > They also need to invalidate, with jail time for legislators and governors, all the flagrantly unconstitutional gun control laws in blue states. If you’re looking to send people to jail for violating the constitution, how about start with pretty much the entire current administration? That’ll show others that you’re speaking about honestly held beliefs. Hell, why bring up blue states at all, given this took place in Texas?
- comrade1234 4mo ago
  It's ridiculous to think that gun laws should be the same in some rural backwater vs in a dense urban area.
- archagon 4mo ago
  Guns are unpopular in blue states for obvious reasons. I suggest you abandon this desire instead of fruitlessly wallowing in rage for the rest of time. It just seems unpleasant.
obpe 4mo ago
[flagged]
- avalys 4mo ago
  It was a unanimous decision.
  - interestpiqued 4mo ago
    Unreal people don’t even read an ai summary of the case
    - Catloafdev 4mo ago
      This site is pretty heavily sandbagged with bots on political topics, par for the course to see this here nowadays.
avalys 4mo ago
Nice to see a unanimous decision on a (by most appearances) controversial topic like this.
- NoImmatureAdHom 4mo ago
  It's less polarized than people think. Most people just don't care about most opinions. ~1/3 of opinions are unanimous. https://web.archive.org/web/20260310212334/https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-supreme-courts-partisan-divide-hasnt-been-this-sharp-in-generations/ https://web.archive.org/web/20260310212334/https://fivethirt... https://reason.com/2025/06/05/is-the-supreme-court-really-that-divided-the-facts-say-no/ https://reason.com/2025/06/05/is-the-supreme-court-really-th...
thmsths 4mo ago
Looking at the first page, the circumstances surrounding the indictment are infuriating. I thought that search warrants had to be specific to avoid just that kind of fishing expedition. The initial warrant was for terrorism related charges, it seems they found no evidence of it. How come they can then turn around and go for other charges?
- toomuchtodo 4mo ago
  No downside, all upside. Qualified immunity, etc. There are no consequences for this behavior by law enforcement and prosecutors unfortunately. "Show me the incentive and I'll show you the outcome."
- tmp10423288442 4mo ago
  If a cop happens to see evidence of a crime, they don't need a warrant to arrest you for it nor for you to be charged for it. Unfortunate for this man, but he shouldn't have had drugs on him (he also had cocaine in addition to marijuana).
  - toomuchtodo 4mo ago
    Law enforcement dishonesty is so frequent, state lists exist to track them ("Brady List"). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_disclosure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_disclosure https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7761&context=jclc https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewconten... https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/minnlrev/vol107/iss2/3/ https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/minnlrev/vol107/iss2/3/ This administration revoked an executive order from the previous administration ("EO 14074") providing for a National Law Enforcement Accountability Database. And so, for the time being, citizens and journalists are left to collect, aggregate, and disseminate this information until the next administration takes office. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/05/31/2022-11810/advancing-effective-accountable-policing-and-criminal-justice-practices-to-enhance-public-trust-and https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/05/31/2022-11... https://bjs.ojp.gov/national-law-enforcement-accountability-database https://bjs.ojp.gov/national-law-enforcement-accountability-... https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2026/01/26/police_misconduct/ https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2026/01/26/police_miscondu... Obligatory "Don't Talk To The Police" Video: https://archive.org/details/youtube-d-7o9xYp7eE https://archive.org/details/youtube-d-7o9xYp7eE Paper: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1998119 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1998119 HN Threads: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dd-7o9xYp7eE https://hn.algolia.com/?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwa...
rolph 4mo ago
someone being a user of a drug, doesnt mean they lose any right to keep and bear a firearm as soon as they start using in perpetuity since, "once a user always a user" a responsible person should realize they violate more than they vindicate by getting HAF and taking potshots at hallucination delusions and illusions. bare minimum, put the guns away, for boilerplate in a timelocked safe, until you are on level cognition again. removing someones right to effective self defense, permanently in complement to a temporary condition is disingenuous considering alcohol use is somehow not a permanently disqualifying condition vs "drug" use being ineffable impairment.

They also need to invalidate, with jail time for legislators and governors, all the flagrantly unconstitutional gun control laws in blue states. A constitutional right is a constitutional right.

chomp 4mo ago
[flagged]
- strideashort 4mo ago
  Which part of “shall not be infringed” is hard to parse, exactly? The question is not if you agree with it or not, the question is, if the constitution matters at all. If your position is that constitution should be overridden by contemporary narratives as government sees fit, I guess that is a valid position, but then accept that your position is one which advocates for government totalitarianism without constitutional constraints. It’s quite simple.
  - sophacles 4mo ago
    Which part of "a well regulated militia" is hard to parse exactly? The right to bear arms is the subordinate clause to the purpose of a well regulated militia. Since the purpose of that militia is clearly defined as "being necessary for the security of the State", it seems to me that the regulating body is the State. Seems to me that the right to bear arms is limited to circumstances when the State itself is under threat. It seems to me that anyone having a gun in their home when the state is not under attack is an open question not covered directly by "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed". But that's because I'm looking at all the words of the actual amendment. I guess your position is that "only randomly selected phrases from the constitution matter if they help me get what I want, whole sentences and the whole document don't actually matter".
    - NoImmatureAdHom 4mo ago
      I remember the word "regulated" back in the day does not mean "regulated" like the FDA regulates foods, it means "regulated" like we still use it for regulating a mechanical watch. "To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning."
      - sophacles 4mo ago
        And you regulate a militia by making sure all the bits work together, for instance by standardizing weapons and ammo. This is also a great argument for licensing - proving that you know how to properly work and use a gun seems like perfect militia regulation (in the proper functioning sense).
    - strideashort 4mo ago
      No it’s not. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, _because_ a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State.
      - sophacles 4mo ago
        What an absurd thing to say. You just made my point - a well regulated militia vital to the amendment. So why in your vast wisdom are you opposed to regulations associated with a regulated militia?
        strideashort 4mo ago
        Well, the amendment is definitely ambiguous hence all these discussions. And everyone interprets it to their liking. Do I think the government needs internal counterforce? Absolutely and there are plenty of countries today to see why. Do I think it’s great that every nutjob has a gun? Well no, I don’t. I am not saying that the amendment is great, but I don’t believe the absolute right to bear arms was intended. That said, it could very well be that the authors did not see it coming that _anyone_ could have a gun, because that was most probably not the case back then. And perhaps here today’s liberal thinking hits the historic context. Last but not least, one interpretation of “regulated” is this. I am not saying it is what was intended, but lots of people argue that: "Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight." Also, the absolute right is the _precursor_ anyway, it is given such that militia can be formed, and the way the militia is organized is not a condition to the right. But admittedly, it is not clear to contemporary reader what they meant.
stymaar 4mo ago
Read the second amendment: the constitutional right is about “A well regulated Militia”.
- jpcfl 4mo ago
  "Well regulated" refers to their ability to shoot straight, and a militia is a civilian force. This language is about civilians being capable of handling weapons.
- sparrish 4mo ago
  Keep reading... "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" You can't have a citizen's militia without an armed populace. If 'the people' don't have guns, you don't have a militia.
  - lobsterthief 4mo ago
    Yes, again, as part of a well-regulated militia…
    - SilverElfin 4mo ago
      No the grammar of the sentence is clear. The right is granted unconditionally. The explanation about a militia is not restricting the right.
      - stymaar 4mo ago
        > No the grammar of the sentence is clear. I love when random internet people claim “this is obvious” about a topic that has caused unlimited controversies among jurists for the past two hundred years… (And the current jurisprudence is clearly against you on that whole topic, as demonstrated by those blue states laws that have not been overturned for being unconstitutional…)
- strideashort 4mo ago
  A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. It’s about the right. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, _because_ a well regulated Militia, is necessary to the security of a free State. The point is to prevent the state from monopolizing violence, simple as.
vitally3643 4mo ago
Clearly you haven't actually read and understood the constitution.
evil-olive 4mo ago
> with jail time for legislators and governors uh-huh. what provision in the Constitution authorizes this, exactly? is there anything in contemporaneous writings (Federalist Papers, for example) where someone advocated that a reasonable separation of powers would be "Article 3 judges should have the power to send legislators to jail as a side-effect of ruling that a law is unconstitutional"? you can argue about the 2nd Amendment all you want, that's one of the oldest pastimes on the internet. but arguing that legislators should be thrown in jail for passing laws you don't like is flashing a big neon "I'm a crank" sign.
- SilverElfin 4mo ago
  The constitution is the highest law of the land. Violating it has consequences. They should be enforced. > but arguing that legislators should be thrown in jail for passing laws you don't like is flashing a big neon "I'm a crank" sign Ad hominem aside, this is equivalent to “We should have laws but they should be selectively meaningless”
  - evil-olive 4mo ago
    > The constitution is the highest law of the land. Violating it has consequences. They should be enforced. yeah, the consequences are that the law in question gets overturned. you're not arguing for enforcing existing consequences, you're trying to make up a whole new set of consequences. people get extremely emotional about the topic of firearms, so let's take what you're saying and apply it to a different context, and hopefully you can understand how ludicrous it is. FDR signed an executive order [0] for internment of American citizens of Japanese ancestry. it was challenged in a case that went to the Supreme Court [1]. SCOTUS upheld that executive order as constitutional. but let's imagine it had gone the other way, and been struck down as unconstitutional. with the "consequences" you're proposing, a decision striking down EO 9066 would also imply President FDR must go to jail, wouldn't it? after all, he violated the Constitution. that is an insane outcome - a 5-4 SCOTUS vote could send a President to jail? the Constitution clearly lays out methods of punishing elected officials - impeachment and possible removal by Congress. in your zeal to defend one tiny sentence of the Constitution, you're inventing out of whole cloth a completely separate way of punishing elected officials, one which would itself be unconstitutional. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States
mcphage 4mo ago
> They also need to invalidate, with jail time for legislators and governors, all the flagrantly unconstitutional gun control laws in blue states. If you’re looking to send people to jail for violating the constitution, how about start with pretty much the entire current administration? That’ll show others that you’re speaking about honestly held beliefs. Hell, why bring up blue states at all, given this took place in Texas?
comrade1234 4mo ago
It's ridiculous to think that gun laws should be the same in some rural backwater vs in a dense urban area.
archagon 4mo ago
Guns are unpopular in blue states for obvious reasons. I suggest you abandon this desire instead of fruitlessly wallowing in rage for the rest of time. It just seems unpleasant.

obpe 4mo ago

[flagged]

avalys 4mo ago
It was a unanimous decision.
- interestpiqued 4mo ago
  Unreal people don’t even read an ai summary of the case
  - Catloafdev 4mo ago
    This site is pretty heavily sandbagged with bots on political topics, par for the course to see this here nowadays.

avalys 4mo ago

Nice to see a unanimous decision on a (by most appearances) controversial topic like this.

NoImmatureAdHom 4mo ago
It's less polarized than people think. Most people just don't care about most opinions. ~1/3 of opinions are unanimous. https://web.archive.org/web/20260310212334/https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-supreme-courts-partisan-divide-hasnt-been-this-sharp-in-generations/ https://web.archive.org/web/20260310212334/https://fivethirt... https://reason.com/2025/06/05/is-the-supreme-court-really-that-divided-the-facts-say-no/ https://reason.com/2025/06/05/is-the-supreme-court-really-th...

thmsths 4mo ago

Looking at the first page, the circumstances surrounding the indictment are infuriating. I thought that search warrants had to be specific to avoid just that kind of fishing expedition. The initial warrant was for terrorism related charges, it seems they found no evidence of it. How come they can then turn around and go for other charges?

toomuchtodo 4mo ago
No downside, all upside. Qualified immunity, etc. There are no consequences for this behavior by law enforcement and prosecutors unfortunately. "Show me the incentive and I'll show you the outcome."
tmp10423288442 4mo ago
If a cop happens to see evidence of a crime, they don't need a warrant to arrest you for it nor for you to be charged for it. Unfortunate for this man, but he shouldn't have had drugs on him (he also had cocaine in addition to marijuana).
- toomuchtodo 4mo ago
  Law enforcement dishonesty is so frequent, state lists exist to track them ("Brady List"). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_disclosure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_disclosure https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7761&context=jclc https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewconten... https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/minnlrev/vol107/iss2/3/ https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/minnlrev/vol107/iss2/3/ This administration revoked an executive order from the previous administration ("EO 14074") providing for a National Law Enforcement Accountability Database. And so, for the time being, citizens and journalists are left to collect, aggregate, and disseminate this information until the next administration takes office. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/05/31/2022-11810/advancing-effective-accountable-policing-and-criminal-justice-practices-to-enhance-public-trust-and https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/05/31/2022-11... https://bjs.ojp.gov/national-law-enforcement-accountability-database https://bjs.ojp.gov/national-law-enforcement-accountability-... https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2026/01/26/police_misconduct/ https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2026/01/26/police_miscondu... Obligatory "Don't Talk To The Police" Video: https://archive.org/details/youtube-d-7o9xYp7eE https://archive.org/details/youtube-d-7o9xYp7eE Paper: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1998119 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1998119 HN Threads: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dd-7o9xYp7eE https://hn.algolia.com/?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwa...

rolph 4mo ago

someone being a user of a drug, doesnt mean they lose any right to keep and bear a firearm as soon as they start using in perpetuity since, "once a user always a user" a responsible person should realize they violate more than they vindicate by getting HAF and taking potshots at hallucination delusions and illusions. bare minimum, put the guns away, for boilerplate in a timelocked safe, until you are on level cognition again. removing someones right to effective self defense, permanently in complement to a temporary condition is disingenuous considering alcohol use is somehow not a permanently disqualifying condition vs "drug" use being ineffable impairment.