Congressional Researchers Explore Options Following SCOTUS Striking Marijuana Gun Ban

One thing I’ve never really understood is how so many people can think that marijuana is so harmless that we should sell it for recreational use on every street corner in America, but is too dangerous to allow those who use it to continue to enjoy the totality of their constitutionally protected rights. I get those who don’t think it should be legal, saying such a thing, mind you. That, at least, has some internal consistency. 

But while multiple administrations have turned a blind eye toward states that legalized marijuana, most of which did nothing to actually make it legal in any way at the federal level, they didn’t blink about enforcing the now-dead prohibition on gun ownership.

I’m glad the Supreme Court made the right call, and they did it unanimously, which blew my mind.

Lawmakers in Congress, however, apparently aren’t content to just leave it lie, and researchers are exploring what can be done now after the Hemani decision.

The new CRS report says that “Congress may accept this invitation to amend § 922(g)(3) if it chooses.”

“For example, Congress might opt to amend the law to more narrowly capture only those individuals who may, because of their use or the nature of the drug involved, present a danger to themselves or others,” it says. “Congress may be interested in modifying other categorical prohibitions in § 922(g) in light of the Court’s discussion of historical laws, particularly to the extent that the government may turn to these laws in future cases to defend the constitutionality of a modern firearms restriction.”

The report from congressional researchers also says, however, that lawmakers may alternatively want to “allow lower courts to sort out any residual questions from Hemani,” including how to interpret whether language in the statute that bars people who are “addicted to” illegal drugs from possessing firearms is consistent with the Second Amendment.

In other words, the last one is to just leave it alone and let the courts handle it. I have mixed feelings about that one, because on one hand, the decision has been handed down, and if they don’t do anything, it’ll get resolved. On the other hand, too many lower courts are presided over by anti-gun nutbars who ignore Supreme Court precedent whenever it’s convenient.

Frankly, simply limiting § 922(g) to those who are a danger to themselves or others might be the wisest course of action. We’ve long taken action against those who are such a threat, so it’s in keeping with tradition, and when historic laws forbid the carrying of guns while drunk, the history to defend such a move was likely set. It’s not a perfect analog, but Rahimi made it clear the analog doesn’t have to be one-to-one.

I’d rather they do that, and do it soon, than some of the options the anti-gunners would try to implement.

The fact that the supposedly super-divided Supreme Court ruled 9-0 on this one means nothing to them. It tells them nothing.

Oh well.

So, for now, it’ll be interesting to see if Congress does anything at all and, if so, what that will be. It might just be easier for them to let the lower courts sort it out if for no other reason than there’s no legislative fight to deal with.

Editor’s Note: The radical Left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.

Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.