Thread by @mkolken

Another Second Amendment victory: Federal Judge rules stripping someone of their right to possess a firearm solely because they use marijuana is unconstitutional. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…

"But the mere use of marijuana carries none of the characteristics that the Nation’s history and tradition of firearms regulation supports. The use of marijuana—which can be bought legally (under state law) at more than 2,000 ordinary store fronts in Oklahoma—

...is not in and of itself a violent, forceful, or threatening act. It is not a “crime of violence.” Nor does it involve “the actual use or threatened use of force.”

..."the mere use of marijuana does not indicate that someone is in fact dangerous, let alone analogous to a “dangerous lunatic.”

..."There are likely nearly 400,000 Oklahomans who use marijuana under state-law authorization. Lumping all those
persons into a category with “dangerous lunatics,” as the United States’ theory requires, is a bridge too far."

..."the limits on the right protected by the Second Amendment 'are not defined' by a person’s 'lack of virtue or good character.' 'The right historical test is not virtue, but dangerousness' as exhibited by past violent, forceful, or threatening conduct."

..."it would be odd indeed for the Framers to have incorporated such a trojan horse into the Second Amendment. The purpose of enshrining a right into the Constitution is to limit the discretion of a legislature."

"all a legislature must do to prohibit a group of persons from possessing arms is to declare that group 'untrustworthy,' then the Second Amendment would provide virtually no limit on Congress’s discretion. The Framers weren’t perfect, but they also weren’t fools."

"And so here we are, with the federal government now arguing that Harrison’s mere status as a user of marijuana justifies stripping him of his fundamental right to possess a firearm. ...this is not a constitutionally permissible means of disarming Harrison."

"Because the Court concludes that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) violates Harrison’s 2nd Amendment right to possess a firearm, the Court declines to reach Harrison’s vagueness claim. The Motion to Dismiss the Indictment is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Indictment is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE."