I knew a career, retired, cop and he once told me "I never once rolled up to a domestic dispute where there was a bong smoking on the table and everyone was stoned. Alcohol, however, pretty much every damn time."
Cop I knew dozens of years ago always said the same thing ...he would "much rather roll up on a group of stoners than even one drunk asshole"
Good, it's absurd to take away someone's gun rights just because they smoke marijuana.
And fundamentally Anti-Constitutional.
Nowhere is there anything supporting this idea - rights aren't conditional. I even have an issue with rights that are curtailed by a felony conviction. What logic supports this? None.
The logic where it says “well-regulated”?
I may actually end up owning a gun someday if it makes it through the Supreme Court. Although I think I could still legally 3d print one.
FYI: possession is illegal if you're a marijuana user, regardless of how you acquire the firearm.
Unless you're in the 5th circuit which has some good precedent in your favor.
For sure, I just wanted to provide clarification because it would appear they thought current law only prevented purchase.
It's a question on the buyer questionnaire. If you admit to smoking weed, they won't even sell you the gun.
Keep it civil.