Guns.

tempo_n_groove · October 21

Gern Blansten said:

dudeman said:

josevolution said:

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-marijuana-guns-e86c342bf248c7822722ad027980b72b?utm_source=onesignal&utm_medium=push&utm_campaign=2025-10-20-Breaking+News
I don’t need no stinking guns 🖕🏽that

I'm really curious to see what happens with this. States with legal recreational and/or medical marijuna laws will have their work cut out for them. If nothing else, some interesting legal precedent cases are sure to arise.

I'm trying to get a grip on how it would be enforced....drug test at time of gun license application? Do all states even require a gun license? If you already have a license do you have to submit to a drug test to see if you smoke weed? If so...how frequently will this testing occur?

Drug testing is usually on the federal level. If it is a states right then the drug testing might not be upheld?

dudeman · October 21

Gern Blansten said:

dudeman said:

josevolution said:

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-marijuana-guns-e86c342bf248c7822722ad027980b72b?utm_source=onesignal&utm_medium=push&utm_campaign=2025-10-20-Breaking+News
I don’t need no stinking guns 🖕🏽that

I'm really curious to see what happens with this. States with legal recreational and/or medical marijuna laws will have their work cut out for them. If nothing else, some interesting legal precedent cases are sure to arise.

I'm trying to get a grip on how it would be enforced....drug test at time of gun license application? Do all states even require a gun license? If you already have a license do you have to submit to a drug test to see if you smoke weed? If so...how frequently will this testing occur?

That's what I want to know too. As it is now, when you purchase a firearm and do your NICS and Form 4473, you have to answer question related to drug use and it specifically lists marijuna. If you answer that you use marijuna, the dealer cannot sell you a firearm.

For those people who smoke and answer "No", they have falsified a federal form.

I have been hearing for years that some states have been working on a database that cross references people who have medical marijuna cards and also have completed 4473 forms with that question answered "No".

What I don't know is whether or not the authorities are going to visit these people and confiscate their guns and prosecute them for lying on a federal document or are they simply going to remove the word "marijuna" from the 4473 form and let it go.

Gern Blansten · October 21

dudeman said:

Gern Blansten said:

dudeman said:

josevolution said:

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-marijuana-guns-e86c342bf248c7822722ad027980b72b?utm_source=onesignal&utm_medium=push&utm_campaign=2025-10-20-Breaking+News
I don’t need no stinking guns 🖕🏽that

I'm really curious to see what happens with this. States with legal recreational and/or medical marijuna laws will have their work cut out for them. If nothing else, some interesting legal precedent cases are sure to arise.

I'm trying to get a grip on how it would be enforced....drug test at time of gun license application? Do all states even require a gun license? If you already have a license do you have to submit to a drug test to see if you smoke weed? If so...how frequently will this testing occur?

That's what I want to know too. As it is now, when you purchase a firearm and do your NICS and Form 4473, you have to answer question related to drug use and it specifically lists marijuna. If you answer that you use marijuna, the dealer cannot sell you a firearm.

For those people who smoke and answer "No", they have falsified a federal form.

I have been hearing for years that some states have been working on a database that cross references people who have medical marijuna cards and also have completed 4473 forms with that question answered "No".

What I don't know is whether or not the authorities are going to visit these people and confiscate their guns and prosecute them for lying on a federal document or are they simply going to remove the word "marijuna" from the 4473 form and let it go.

yeah it's weird....and who is to say that at the time you fill out the form you have never used weed but then you changed your mind and like to get really stoned?

fucking republicans

Halifax2TheMax · October 21

dudeman said:

Gern Blansten said:

dudeman said:

josevolution said:

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-marijuana-guns-e86c342bf248c7822722ad027980b72b?utm_source=onesignal&utm_medium=push&utm_campaign=2025-10-20-Breaking+News
I don’t need no stinking guns 🖕🏽that

I'm really curious to see what happens with this. States with legal recreational and/or medical marijuna laws will have their work cut out for them. If nothing else, some interesting legal precedent cases are sure to arise.

I'm trying to get a grip on how it would be enforced....drug test at time of gun license application? Do all states even require a gun license? If you already have a license do you have to submit to a drug test to see if you smoke weed? If so...how frequently will this testing occur?

That's what I want to know too. As it is now, when you purchase a firearm and do your NICS and Form 4473, you have to answer question related to drug use and it specifically lists marijuna. If you answer that you use marijuna, the dealer cannot sell you a firearm.

For those people who smoke and answer "No", they have falsified a federal form.

I have been hearing for years that some states have been working on a database that cross references people who have medical marijuna cards and also have completed 4473 forms with that question answered "No".

What I don't know is whether or not the authorities are going to visit these people and confiscate their guns and prosecute them for lying on a federal document or are they simply going to remove the word "marijuna" from the 4473 form and let it go.

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

As well they should. Everyone who has lied on that federal firearm form should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, a la Hunter Biden. Fucking hypocrites.

mace1229 · October 21

dudeman said:

Gern Blansten said:

dudeman said:

josevolution said:

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-marijuana-guns-e86c342bf248c7822722ad027980b72b?utm_source=onesignal&utm_medium=push&utm_campaign=2025-10-20-Breaking+News
I don’t need no stinking guns 🖕🏽that

I'm really curious to see what happens with this. States with legal recreational and/or medical marijuna laws will have their work cut out for them. If nothing else, some interesting legal precedent cases are sure to arise.

I'm trying to get a grip on how it would be enforced....drug test at time of gun license application? Do all states even require a gun license? If you already have a license do you have to submit to a drug test to see if you smoke weed? If so...how frequently will this testing occur?

That's what I want to know too. As it is now, when you purchase a firearm and do your NICS and Form 4473, you have to answer question related to drug use and it specifically lists marijuna. If you answer that you use marijuna, the dealer cannot sell you a firearm.

For those people who smoke and answer "No", they have falsified a federal form.

I have been hearing for years that some states have been working on a database that cross references people who have medical marijuna cards and also have completed 4473 forms with that question answered "No".

What I don't know is whether or not the authorities are going to visit these people and confiscate their guns and prosecute them for lying on a federal document or are they simply going to remove the word "marijuna" from the 4473 form and let it go.

I believe the form uses the term "unlawful user."
I would think someone with a medical card could easily argue they weren't an "unlawful user". Yes, I know the federal law. Still, I would think even. public defender could make that argument.

dudeman · October 21

mace1229 said:

dudeman said:

Gern Blansten said:

dudeman said:

josevolution said:

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-marijuana-guns-e86c342bf248c7822722ad027980b72b?utm_source=onesignal&utm_medium=push&utm_campaign=2025-10-20-Breaking+News
I don’t need no stinking guns 🖕🏽that

I'm really curious to see what happens with this. States with legal recreational and/or medical marijuna laws will have their work cut out for them. If nothing else, some interesting legal precedent cases are sure to arise.

I'm trying to get a grip on how it would be enforced....drug test at time of gun license application? Do all states even require a gun license? If you already have a license do you have to submit to a drug test to see if you smoke weed? If so...how frequently will this testing occur?

That's what I want to know too. As it is now, when you purchase a firearm and do your NICS and Form 4473, you have to answer question related to drug use and it specifically lists marijuna. If you answer that you use marijuna, the dealer cannot sell you a firearm.

For those people who smoke and answer "No", they have falsified a federal form.

I have been hearing for years that some states have been working on a database that cross references people who have medical marijuna cards and also have completed 4473 forms with that question answered "No".

What I don't know is whether or not the authorities are going to visit these people and confiscate their guns and prosecute them for lying on a federal document or are they simply going to remove the word "marijuna" from the 4473 form and let it go.

I believe the form uses the term "unlawful user."
I would think someone with a medical card could easily argue they weren't an "unlawful user". Yes, I know the federal law. Still, I would think even. public defender could make that argument.

Nevermind. I just looked it up and the form has been updated since the last time I saw one. It looks like it explains right on the form that marijuna use is illegal, even if you reside in a state that allows recreational or medicinal use.

Tim Simmons · October 24

If it passes and you are white, don’t worry, it won’t be enforced against you. It’s meant to go after brown people.

josevolution · October 24

Don’t worry you can be a raging alcoholic and still get any weapon you might desire! Do they test for alcohol when purchasing a gun?

dudeman · October 25

josevolution said:

Don’t worry you can be a raging alcoholic and still get any weapon you might desire! Do they test for alcohol when purchasing a gun?

Alcohol use isn't a federal crime like marijuna use currently is.

brianlux · October 25

It would be interesting to see who shoots other people more often: drunk people, or stoned people?

dudeman · October 25

brianlux said:

It would be interesting to see who shoots other people more often: drunk people, or stoned people?

I'm sure it's drunk people by a landslide.

josevolution · October 25

dudeman said:

josevolution said:

Don’t worry you can be a raging alcoholic and still get any weapon you might desire! Do they test for alcohol when purchasing a gun?

Alcohol use isn't a federal crime like marijuna use currently is.

brianlux said:

It would be interesting to see who shoots other people more often: drunk people, or stoned people?

dudeman said:

brianlux said:

It would be interesting to see who shoots other people more often: drunk people, or stoned people?

I'm sure it's drunk people by a landslide.

dudeman · October 25

josevolution said:

dudeman said:

josevolution said:

Don’t worry you can be a raging alcoholic and still get any weapon you might desire! Do they test for alcohol when purchasing a gun?

Alcohol use isn't a federal crime like marijuna use currently is.

brianlux said:

It would be interesting to see who shoots other people more often: drunk people, or stoned people?

dudeman said:

brianlux said:

It would be interesting to see who shoots other people more often: drunk people, or stoned people?

I'm sure it's drunk people by a landslide.

The irony isn't lost on me, or probably most people. It doesn't make sense but that's the law and it has been for decades. No one, dems or reps have done much to change it at the federal level, either.

josevolution · October 25

dudeman said:

josevolution said:

dudeman said:

josevolution said:

Don’t worry you can be a raging alcoholic and still get any weapon you might desire! Do they test for alcohol when purchasing a gun?

Alcohol use isn't a federal crime like marijuna use currently is.

brianlux said:

It would be interesting to see who shoots other people more often: drunk people, or stoned people?

dudeman said:

brianlux said:

It would be interesting to see who shoots other people more often: drunk people, or stoned people?

I'm sure it's drunk people by a landslide.

The irony isn't lost on me, or probably most people. It doesn't make sense but that's the law and it has been for decades. No one, dems or reps have done much to change it at the federal level, either.

Agreed!

DE4173 · October 25

dudeman said:

brianlux said:

It would be interesting to see who shoots other people more often: drunk people, or stoned people?

I'm sure it's drunk people by a landslide.

Yeah, it's never "Watch this! Hold my joint!" 😉

brianlux · October 25

dudeman said:

josevolution said:

dudeman said:

josevolution said:

Don’t worry you can be a raging alcoholic and still get any weapon you might desire! Do they test for alcohol when purchasing a gun?

Alcohol use isn't a federal crime like marijuna use currently is.

brianlux said:

It would be interesting to see who shoots other people more often: drunk people, or stoned people?

dudeman said:

brianlux said:

It would be interesting to see who shoots other people more often: drunk people, or stoned people?

I'm sure it's drunk people by a landslide.

The irony isn't lost on me, or probably most people. It doesn't make sense but that's the law and it has been for decades. No one, dems or reps have done much to change it at the federal level, either.

Good point.

And it's very confusing to me that more people, even gun owners, aren't OK with increasing backgrounds checks, etc. I'm mostly against guns (though willingly admit I know some gun owners who I trust and believe are very safe with their firearms), and as much as I would love to live in a country where guns are more restricted, like several countries in the east, the U.K., Australia, Norway, and somewhat in Canada I know that in the U.S. that's not likely to happen. We're is nearly polar opposite of those other places, so at this point in history, it's not practical to expect a widespread ban on guns. But some sensible tightening of access only makes sense. I guess it's one of those "if wishes were horses" things.

mace1229 · October 27

brianlux said:

dudeman said:

josevolution said:

dudeman said:

josevolution said:

Don’t worry you can be a raging alcoholic and still get any weapon you might desire! Do they test for alcohol when purchasing a gun?

Alcohol use isn't a federal crime like marijuna use currently is.

brianlux said:

It would be interesting to see who shoots other people more often: drunk people, or stoned people?

dudeman said:

brianlux said:

It would be interesting to see who shoots other people more often: drunk people, or stoned people?

I'm sure it's drunk people by a landslide.

The irony isn't lost on me, or probably most people. It doesn't make sense but that's the law and it has been for decades. No one, dems or reps have done much to change it at the federal level, either.

Good point.
And it's very confusing to me that more people, even gun owners, aren't OK with increasing backgrounds checks, etc. I'm mostly against guns (though willingly admit I know some gun owners who I trust and believe are very safe with their firearms), and as much as I would love to live in a country where guns are more restricted, like several countries in the east, the U.K., Australia, Norway, and somewhat in Canada I know that in the U.S. that's not likely to happen. We're is nearly polar opposite of those other places, so at this point in history, it's not practical to expect a widespread ban on guns. But some sensible tightening of access only makes sense. I guess it's one of those "if wishes were horses" things.

By increasing background checks do you mean closing the loopholes, like the gun show?
I know a lot of gun owners who are okay with that. The problem is when a lack of common sense is applied and high fees are attached to it.

brianlux · October 27

mace1229 said:

brianlux said:

dudeman said:

josevolution said:

dudeman said:

josevolution said:

Don’t worry you can be a raging alcoholic and still get any weapon you might desire! Do they test for alcohol when purchasing a gun?

Alcohol use isn't a federal crime like marijuna use currently is.

brianlux said:

It would be interesting to see who shoots other people more often: drunk people, or stoned people?

dudeman said:

brianlux said:

It would be interesting to see who shoots other people more often: drunk people, or stoned people?

I'm sure it's drunk people by a landslide.

The irony isn't lost on me, or probably most people. It doesn't make sense but that's the law and it has been for decades. No one, dems or reps have done much to change it at the federal level, either.

Good point.
And it's very confusing to me that more people, even gun owners, aren't OK with increasing backgrounds checks, etc. I'm mostly against guns (though willingly admit I know some gun owners who I trust and believe are very safe with their firearms), and as much as I would love to live in a country where guns are more restricted, like several countries in the east, the U.K., Australia, Norway, and somewhat in Canada I know that in the U.S. that's not likely to happen. We're is nearly polar opposite of those other places, so at this point in history, it's not practical to expect a widespread ban on guns. But some sensible tightening of access only makes sense. I guess it's one of those "if wishes were horses" things.

By increasing background checks do you mean closing the loopholes, like the gun show?
I know a lot of gun owners who are okay with that. The problem is when a lack of common sense is applied and high fees are attached to it.

Odd that I hadn't actually though about gun shows because every November there is a gun show in town. It always bugs me when that come around and I see signs posted all over the place announcing it because its a reminder to me of how many people in my area are gun crazy. I was thinking more of things like universal background checks, ban on assault weapons, increased requirements for gun owner keeping their fire arms secured, increased waiting periods- things that are very reasonable.

Get_Right · October 27

brianlux said:

mace1229 said:

brianlux said:

dudeman said:

josevolution said:

dudeman said:

josevolution said:

Don’t worry you can be a raging alcoholic and still get any weapon you might desire! Do they test for alcohol when purchasing a gun?

Alcohol use isn't a federal crime like marijuna use currently is.

brianlux said:

It would be interesting to see who shoots other people more often: drunk people, or stoned people?

dudeman said:

brianlux said:

It would be interesting to see who shoots other people more often: drunk people, or stoned people?

I'm sure it's drunk people by a landslide.

The irony isn't lost on me, or probably most people. It doesn't make sense but that's the law and it has been for decades. No one, dems or reps have done much to change it at the federal level, either.

Good point.
And it's very confusing to me that more people, even gun owners, aren't OK with increasing backgrounds checks, etc. I'm mostly against guns (though willingly admit I know some gun owners who I trust and believe are very safe with their firearms), and as much as I would love to live in a country where guns are more restricted, like several countries in the east, the U.K., Australia, Norway, and somewhat in Canada I know that in the U.S. that's not likely to happen. We're is nearly polar opposite of those other places, so at this point in history, it's not practical to expect a widespread ban on guns. But some sensible tightening of access only makes sense. I guess it's one of those "if wishes were horses" things.

By increasing background checks do you mean closing the loopholes, like the gun show?
I know a lot of gun owners who are okay with that. The problem is when a lack of common sense is applied and high fees are attached to it.

Odd that I hadn't actually though about gun shows because every November there is a gun show in town. It always bugs me when that come around and I see signs posted all over the place announcing it because its a reminder to me of how many people in my area are gun crazy. I was thinking more of things like universal background checks, ban on assault weapons, increased requirements for gun owner keeping their fire arms secured, increased waiting periods- things that are very reasonable.

Reasonable but unenforceable. Cops cannot bang on every door. You get caught with one, you go to jail. And a felony record so you cannot get a real job. Maybe deny social security benefits. Period. Just get rid of all the guns.

mace1229 · October 27

brianlux said:

mace1229 said:

brianlux said:

dudeman said:

josevolution said:

dudeman said:

josevolution said:

Don’t worry you can be a raging alcoholic and still get any weapon you might desire! Do they test for alcohol when purchasing a gun?

Alcohol use isn't a federal crime like marijuna use currently is.

brianlux said:

It would be interesting to see who shoots other people more often: drunk people, or stoned people?

dudeman said:

brianlux said:

It would be interesting to see who shoots other people more often: drunk people, or stoned people?

I'm sure it's drunk people by a landslide.

The irony isn't lost on me, or probably most people. It doesn't make sense but that's the law and it has been for decades. No one, dems or reps have done much to change it at the federal level, either.

Good point.
And it's very confusing to me that more people, even gun owners, aren't OK with increasing backgrounds checks, etc. I'm mostly against guns (though willingly admit I know some gun owners who I trust and believe are very safe with their firearms), and as much as I would love to live in a country where guns are more restricted, like several countries in the east, the U.K., Australia, Norway, and somewhat in Canada I know that in the U.S. that's not likely to happen. We're is nearly polar opposite of those other places, so at this point in history, it's not practical to expect a widespread ban on guns. But some sensible tightening of access only makes sense. I guess it's one of those "if wishes were horses" things.

By increasing background checks do you mean closing the loopholes, like the gun show?
I know a lot of gun owners who are okay with that. The problem is when a lack of common sense is applied and high fees are attached to it.

Odd that I hadn't actually though about gun shows because every November there is a gun show in town. It always bugs me when that come around and I see signs posted all over the place announcing it because its a reminder to me of how many people in my area are gun crazy. I was thinking more of things like universal background checks, ban on assault weapons, increased requirements for gun owner keeping their fire arms secured, increased waiting periods- things that are very reasonable.

Do you want California to have stricter laws, or just across the nation?
I lived in California until I was 30, and they have some of the strictest gun laws. As far as I know, there are no exceptions to the background checks, you need to pass a (pretty basic) test to buy a firearm, and the waiting period was 10 days I believe. I'm asking because I know you live there, and California already has all that you are asking for except the assault rifle ban. So I'm curious if you think more states need to follow CA, or if they aren't strict enough.

And universal background checks is what I meant by closing the loophole. I believe (not 100% on this though) that all states require a background check when purchasing from a dealer. I was surprised when I moved out of CA and learned some states don't require background checks for private party sales. Thats the loophole I was referring to; gun shows, private party, etc.

Guns.

Comments

Categories