Once upon a time, alcohol was banned in this country. It didn’t stop people from drinking it, but it was considered so bad for people that a constitutional amendment was ratified to ban booze. It didn’t last long, thankfully, but the truth of the matter is that it caused irreparable harm to the country. While marijuana isn’t the same as a good bottle of bourbon, the Supreme Court ruled that recreational users of illicit substances shouldn’t be subjected to a lifetime ban from gun ownership.
One would imagine this should count as common sense, and the fact that it was a 9-0 decision alone should provide at least some evidence of how that should be the case, but not everyone agrees.
Unsurprisingly, some gun rights groups were quick to celebrate the victory.
The Firearms Policy Coalition noted:
“For years, we’ve told the government and recalcitrant lower courts that they were wrong. In today’s decision, the Supreme Court unanimously confirmed that we’ve been right all along. The Second Amendment is not a second-class right that can be denied to peaceable Americans for any reason the government dreams up, full stop. Justice Thomas’s outstanding concurrence also highlights something FPC has argued for years: Congress does not have a general police power, and the Commerce Clause is not a magic wand that transforms every activity in America into federal business. We’re proud that arguments advanced by FPC helped shape that constitutional discussion. FPC and our Grassroots Army will keep Fighting Forward until every unconstitutional scheme built on those same defective foundations is eliminated.” — Brandon Combs, President, Firearms Policy Coalition
A concurring opinion by Justice Thomas cites the amicus brief by FPC multiple times to correctly argue that, “[a]s a matter of both original meaning and this Court’s precedents, Congress lacks the power to regulate the possession of firearms solely on the ground that they crossed state lines at some point in the past.”
Combs is far from alone in that sentiment.
“The federal statute, as the court rightly held, casts too wide a net,” Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Chairman Alan Gottlieb said in a statement. “This one-size-fits-all approach to law enforcement has never worked. As we noted in our brief, historically the government has never prohibited sober people from owning firearms because they sometimes drank alcohol. The same logic applies here, especially since so many states now allow recreational marijuana use, and its use as a prescribed medical aid are widely recognized.
“We are also in agreement with the spirited concurrence from Justice Clarence Thomas that the courts should revisit the constitutionality of the entire section of law under which Mr. Hemani, and so many others, have been prosecuted,” he added.
The law in question was originally intended to address those addicted to drugs, and most marijuana users aren’t addicts any more than most who enjoy a beer or a bit of hard liquor are alcoholics. Yet, even if they were, where does the government get off taking away someone’s rights for ingesting a substance that they disapprove of and doing so solely for that reason? Yes, many addicts are also criminals, but again, not all of them are, and the criminality alone is enough of a standard to disarm them under current law, so again, why?
Hermani at least fixed part of the problem. I don’t approve of marijuana for recreational purposes, but the world doesn’t revolve around what I personally approve or disapprove of, unfortunately.
As for gun rights groups, I’m sure all of them will have formal statements coming out soon enough, because I don’t know of any of them that aren’t pumping their fists at this decision.
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.
Read the full article here

32 Comments
The cost guidance is better than expected. If they deliver, the stock could rerate.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
Interesting update on Gun Rights Groups Celebrate Hemani Win. Curious how the grades will trend next quarter.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
Silver leverage is strong here; beta cuts both ways though.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
The cost guidance is better than expected. If they deliver, the stock could rerate.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
If AISC keeps dropping, this becomes investable for me.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
Nice to see insider buying—usually a good signal in this space.
The cost guidance is better than expected. If they deliver, the stock could rerate.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
Nice to see insider buying—usually a good signal in this space.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
Nice to see insider buying—usually a good signal in this space.
Uranium names keep pushing higher—supply still tight into 2026.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
Silver leverage is strong here; beta cuts both ways though.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
Nice to see insider buying—usually a good signal in this space.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
Production mix shifting toward USA might help margins if metals stay firm.
The cost guidance is better than expected. If they deliver, the stock could rerate.
The cost guidance is better than expected. If they deliver, the stock could rerate.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.