SCOTUS drops 9-0 bombshell on cannabis and guns: Big 2A win?

[00:00:00]Landmark marijuana ruling from the Supreme Court today. Let's go to Ryan Smith at the live desk to break down that decision. Not every day, Ryan, that we see this kind of alignment.

[00:00:09]>> Yeah, Didi, it was a rare [music] 9-0 decision here from the Supreme Court involving a Second Amendment case with all justices here in agreement today.

[00:00:18]Creating also an equally unlikely partnership between gun rights advocates as well as marijuana users. Now, the high court ruling here against a broad federal law that bans anyone who uses illegal drugs from owning a gun citing a violation of the Second Amendment. Some important context to consider here though, the ruling narrowly limits the government's power to take guns away from users who are not considered dangerous. In effect, protecting gun rights for millions of Americans who use marijuana, which is legal for recreational use in about half of the states, but of course illegal under federal law.

[00:00:58]>> Yeah, you heard that right. The feds tried to disarm a citizen because they smoked the wacky stuff every other day. The Supreme Court told them to pretty much pound sand.

[00:01:11]But is this the slam dunk victory that it looks like? I'm going to break this down.

[00:01:15]Now, we can have a different conversation at another time regarding the suspect or the person in this case.

[00:01:21]Won't get into that now.

[00:01:23]But there were some suspected terrorize. This particular case is United States versus Himmani. Ali Himmani had a handgun in his Texas home.

[00:01:36]He admitted to using marijuana regularly, every other day or so, but he wasn't addicted according to him, wasn't impaired at the time, and wasn't waving the gun around committing crimes. The government had been investigating him for other unrelated allegations, but they chose to only charge him under the federal unlawful user of a controlled substance gun ban, section 922 G3.

[00:01:58]That's the federal statute that says if you're an unlawful user of certain substances, you automatically lose your Second Amendment rights. And I think we can all agree that that's bullcrap.

[00:02:09]I mean, you can have that long-standing debate on the differences between alcohol, marijuana, and other things or whatever, which ones are more dangerous than all that, but clearly, if you drink alcohol every other day like this guy did his marijuana, or every day, you're good. Well, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously, 9-0, that prosecution in this case completely violates the Second Amendment. Justice Gorsuch wrote the opinion, and they applied the Bruen test, rightfully so, history and tradition. The government tried to compare this modern ban to old historical habitual drunkard laws, but Gorsuch rejected that, pointing out those old laws targeted people who were completely incapacitated and required an actual court process. This federal law just automatically disarms citizens with no proof of danger, no due process. The court said, "No historical tradition supports that level of overreach." So, they tossed the charge against Hamani.

[00:03:07]Look, in many cases, this is a real win.

[00:03:09]I don't care where you stand on the whole possession, medical use, or whatever of marijuana.

[00:03:16]This is still a win because the federal government was abusing the fact that this still stood in order to violate the rights of a whole lot of people out there. First guys, a quick heads-up, I'm dropping a link down below to some seriously solid blades from my iconic knife company. These guys are putting out premium knives built for everyday carry, hard use, and tactical applications, and the designs are absolutely slick. Veteran-owned, quality materials, smooth action, ceramic ball bearings in here make these things super smooth, the whole package. If you're into knives, gear, EDC, or just appreciate well-built equipment, you need to check these out. Hit that link down below and check them out for yourself, and trust me, you're probably going to end up wanting one. Iconic Knife Company. I mean, literally millions of Americans use this product, whether medically or recreationally in states that it's entirely legal. This ruling means the feds can't just categorically disarm sober, non-dangerous citizens without meeting a massive burden of proof. And that's the way it should be. The federal government should not just be able to impose things on you just because something you did in the past. This is almost like Look, it's going to kind of segway segway me into the commerce clause conversation, but it's kind of the same thing. Like, because the federal government, especially on that form 4473, designates marijuana as an illegal substance, it's like they can say objectively, whenever they think it is, if you've ever used it in the past, you're still an illegal user. I mean, there's not like this big They don't define a window. Oh, well, as long as you're within this window of use, the 4473 or the question of 4473 doesn't apply to you. You can check no on it.

[00:05:00]No, they're saying that they can decide how you're an abuser. This is going to force changes as to how the ATF enforces the 4473 form. The unlawful user question just got narrowed down significantly. Occasional, responsible users who aren't impaired have a massive legal shield now. And it tightens the screws on how lower courts have to apply Bruen. The government can't just say substances equal dangerous and strip all your rights away, cuz essentially that's what they were trying to do. If that substance was in your possession, or if you did it, they automatically deem you to be a dangerous person, which is stupid.

[00:05:37]Again, that's like if you apply it to alcohol, it's like saying a person that just had a beer suddenly became dangerous. But, I don't want to get too carried away with this because this is a narrow as applied ruling based on Hemani's specific facts. And it really it should be like that. I mean, let's be real.

[00:05:53]There should not be some court blast thing that applies just broad across everyone. I think you have to look at every specific case. That's the way it should be. But this doesn't strike down the entire statute across the board.

[00:06:05]Addicts, people carrying while actively impaired, or those proven to be dangerous can still be prosecuted under federal law, and the Department of Justice will try to limit this ruling to the floorboards. And yeah, the guy did have some questionable things in his background, and I'm using that term loosely. More than questionable.

[00:06:24]But they charged him incorrectly, and the court ignored the uncharged noise and focused strictly on the constitutional charge. That's how it should work.

[00:06:33]Rights aren't just for perfect people, they are for all citizens, right? I mean, I'm not condoning the guy's questionable background. What I'm saying is as long as we are open and should be to the law being applied equally and fairly, it shouldn't matter what the baggage is if the baggage doesn't impact what the charge was.

[00:06:56]So, just because somebody is an ass doesn't mean they should be that that the federal government should be able to lump erroneous charges onto them for erroneous things.

[00:07:08]Those were still charged incorrectly.

[00:07:10]You know, if you want to hit the guy for the bad things he's done, go after the bad things he's done. Don't cling to some stupid stuff out there like the commerce clause or whatever, or his marijuana. Again, whole another video on the commerce clause issue. If you don't know anything about that, you should do some research on that. The commerce clause is what really gives the government a whole lot of teeth out there that they should not possess. And regarding that, Justice Thomas joined the opinion, but went even further when he argued that the entire federal possession ban probably violates the commerce clause.

[00:07:43]He pointed out that the feds are regulating simple possession inside a single state just because a firearm or product once crossed state lines years ago. That is the exact same weak legal hook the federal government uses for almost all gun control.

[00:07:58]Again, a whole different video on this at another time. I don't want to take up your time on that here. Essentially, what they mean is the federal government is claiming power to regulate firearms if that at any point that firearm crossed state lines.

[00:08:13]In other words, if your Glock is made in Georgia and it's sold to somebody here in Louisiana, even if that was 20 years ago. Of course, were they made in Georgia 20 years ago? When did I don't know when they moved their manufacture.

[00:08:27]Anyway, you see what I'm saying? If it's made in Georgia and it gets shipped to, let's say, from a dealer to a gun shop here in the state of Louisiana, federal government is saying we have control to regulate that item because at any point in history, even if it was 20 years ago, if that firearm crossed state lines, it enacts the commerce clause.

[00:08:50]And it I'm paraphrasing. I am simplifying, oversimplifying. That's initially what it does. So, you could have an old Colt 1908 manufactured in 1908, literally over 100 years ago. And if it crossed state lines at that point, the government says we can control that, even if it was 110 years ago. So, regarding that, if the high court ever fully adopts Thomas's view here, it could open the floodgates for challenges against federal restrictions on NFA items that are made and kept entirely inside your home state. That's the real sleeper hit I see in this decision. And there's currently things going on regarding this. You know, Texas passed, I think it was in '21, that it they were going to make suppressors in the state of Texas. In fact, they even stamp on a suppressor made in Texas.

[00:09:38]And if that suppressor was made in Texas and never left Texas, if a Texan decided to purchase that suppressor, then it didn't need to be registered with the federal government and no $200 tax stamp was paid. I understand the tax stamp has gone away since then, but still, it would not you would not need ATF approval if in fact it was made in Texas, sold in Texas, and stayed in Texas. Commerce clause wouldn't apply. In other words, they saw how the federal government was abusing the commerce clause and they said, "Okay, cool.

[00:10:08]Won't cross state state lines."

[00:10:10]Now, obviously, this is still being litigated cuz the federal government immediately jumped in and said, "Oh, no, no, no, no. We still have you know, regulation over this."

[00:10:18]But I think Thomas now kind of scratching the surface here might bring some other things up from lower courts.

[00:10:24]In fact, some of these things might be settled in lower court before it ever even gets to the Supreme Court. But I look for some commerce clause stuff to be challenged hopefully soon because it's a massive abuse. Again, you could have a 100-year-old gun that has been in your possession for 50 years and the government says, "I can regulate that because at some point in its history, it did cross state lines, so we can regulate it." Bottom line is, I see this as another Bruen victory chipping away at status-based disarmament. The feds hate it when they actually have to prove history instead of just dictating policy from a desk. Gun owners who act responsibly just got a lot more breathing room. But, stay vigilant. The fight is not over and it seems like the fight for our rights never ends. Let me know what you think. Make sure you are subscribed to Legally Armed America, like the video, and as always, guys, stay armed, be dangerous, and may God continue to bless America. Don't forget, guys, if you're looking for a book to educate yourself and to educate the idiots out there who can't think for themselves regarding mass shootings, go to damntheliers.net.

[00:11:29]Again, damntheliers.net and get my brand new book, Damn Liars.

[00:11:33]>> I'm sorry, I THOUGHT THIS WAS AMERICA.

[00:11:40]>> Just hanging around.

[00:11:42]>> around.