A wrinkle to this case is that Federally marijuana is in the most restricted category. It’s above meth or cocaine.

Obviously a lot of people consider those drugs more harmful than marijuana, but if we are playing the legal game then marijuana is legislated as being more dangerous and that’s what the court has to work with.

SCOTUS I think has to decide if controlled substance use as a whole can prohibit legally buying a gun or not. I’m not sure if they can just make a carveout for marijuana. (Also the person taking the case up had cocaine too, so it can’t not be brought up.)

You’d be surprised how many 2A people, who are across the political spectrum, are fine with removing that category of prohibition entirely. However I wonder if it will make SCOTUS more hesitant to make such an “extreme” ruling.

A surprising amount of people don’t understand that if they live in a state where weed is legal that doesn’t mean Federal laws on it don’t apply.

The case is about overturning an existing restriction, not adding new ones.

This case is not about imposing new restrictions.

Weed is already prohibited. The case is about overturning that.

The case is about overturning existing prohibitions. Reading the article would clarify this.

I wish people would read the articles. Weed is already Federally prohibited. The case is an attempt to overturn that.

The case is not about implementing new gun control, but looking at if an aspect of existing control is unconstitutional.

The case in front of SCOTUS is not about implementing a new restriction. It is about if a long standing restriction on the unrelated use of controlled substances is a Constitutional violation. Weed is grabbing the headline, but the restriction applies to a vast range of substances.