On Fire 🔥 @fittyafandbeatz - Twitter Profile

7 months ago

The federal prohibition on firearm possession by marijuana users—under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)—is unconstitutional because it violates the Second Amendment. Here's a clear breakdown: 1. The Second Amendment protects "the people" in their right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. This includes ordinary, nonviolent adults—even those who use cannabis—unless there's a strong historical basis for disarming them. 2. In the landmark 2022 Supreme Court case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Court ruled that modern gun laws must be consistent with America's historical tradition of firearm regulation. If no relevant founding-era (or Reconstruction-era) analogue exists, the law fails. 3. No such historical tradition supports permanently or broadly disarming sober individuals solely for past or occasional marijuana use. Founding-era laws sometimes restricted carrying while intoxicated (especially with alcohol), but they did not strip rights from people based on non-intoxicating, off-duty, or habitual use when they're of sound mind and not impaired. 4. The ban is also overbroad and vague. It criminalizes possession by any "unlawful user" of a controlled substance (including marijuana, a Schedule I drug federally), even in states where it's legal for medical or recreational use. This sweeps in millions of otherwise law-abiding Americans—medical patients, occasional users, veterans using it for pain—without requiring proof of current impairment, dangerousness, or any link to firearm misuse. 5. Federal appeals courts, especially the Fifth Circuit, have struck down applications of this ban post-Bruen. In United States v. Daniels (2023, reaffirmed 2025) and United States v. Connelly (2024), the court held there's no historical justification for disarming nonviolent marijuana users who aren't presently under the influence. History supports temporary limits on the intoxicated, not lifetime felony disarmament for sober citizens. The Supreme Court is now set to decide this directly in United States v. Hemani (oral arguments heard or upcoming in 2026 term), where amici like the NRA, Cato, Reason Foundation, and others argue the ban lacks historical roots and should fall. Bottom line: Disarming millions of Americans just because they use marijuana—often legally at the state level—isn't rooted in history, it's outdated federal overreach that clashes with the Constitution.

ThrillaRilla369's tweet photo. The federal prohibition on firearm possession by marijuana users—under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)—is unconstitutional because it violates the Second Amendment.

Here's a clear breakdown:

1. The Second Amendment protects "the people" in their right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. This includes ordinary, nonviolent adults—even those who use cannabis—unless there's a strong historical basis for disarming them.

2. In the landmark 2022 Supreme Court case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Court ruled that modern gun laws must be consistent with America's historical tradition of firearm regulation. If no relevant founding-era (or Reconstruction-era) analogue exists, the law fails.

3. No such historical tradition supports permanently or broadly disarming sober individuals solely for past or occasional marijuana use. Founding-era laws sometimes restricted carrying while intoxicated (especially with alcohol), but they did not strip rights from people based on non-intoxicating, off-duty, or habitual use when they're of sound mind and not impaired.

4. The ban is also overbroad and vague. It criminalizes possession by any "unlawful user" of a controlled substance (including marijuana, a Schedule I drug federally), even in states where it's legal for medical or recreational use. This sweeps in millions of otherwise law-abiding Americans—medical patients, occasional users, veterans using it for pain—without requiring proof of current impairment, dangerousness, or any link to firearm misuse.

5. Federal appeals courts, especially the Fifth Circuit, have struck down applications of this ban post-Bruen. In United States v. Daniels (2023, reaffirmed 2025) and United States v. Connelly (2024), the court held there's no historical justification for disarming nonviolent marijuana users who aren't presently under the influence. History supports temporary limits on the intoxicated, not lifetime felony disarmament for sober citizens.

The Supreme Court is now set to decide this directly in United States v. Hemani (oral arguments heard or upcoming in 2026 term), where amici like the NRA, Cato, Reason Foundation, and others argue the ban lacks historical roots and should fall.

Bottom line: Disarming millions of Americans just because they use marijuana—often legally at the state level—isn't rooted in history, it's outdated federal overreach that clashes with the Constitution.

234

2K

636

203

53K

On Fire 🔥

@FittyAfAndBeatz

Who to follow

Last Seen Users on Sotwe

Trends for you

Most Popular Users