US Supreme Court drug users cannot be prohibited from firearms [pdf] | Hacker News Reader

US Supreme Court drug users cannot be prohibited from firearms [pdf]

supremecourt.gov

Nice to see a unanimous decision on a (by most appearances) controversial topic like this.

It's less polarized than people think. Most people just don't care about most opinions. ~1/3 of opinions are unanimous.

https://web.archive.org/web/20260310212334/https://fivethirt...

https://reason.com/2025/06/05/is-the-supreme-court-really-th...

Looking at the first page, the circumstances surrounding the indictment are infuriating. I thought that search warrants had to be specific to avoid just that kind of fishing expedition. The initial warrant was for terrorism related charges, it seems they found no evidence of it. How come they can then turn around and go for other charges?

No downside, all upside. Qualified immunity, etc. There are no consequences for this behavior by law enforcement and prosecutors unfortunately.

"Show me the incentive and I'll show you the outcome."

If a cop happens to see evidence of a crime, they don't need a warrant to arrest you for it nor for you to be charged for it. Unfortunate for this man, but he shouldn't have had drugs on him (he also had cocaine in addition to marijuana).

Law enforcement dishonesty is so frequent, state lists exist to track them ("Brady List").

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_disclosure

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewconten...

https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/minnlrev/vol107/iss2/3/

This administration revoked an executive order from the previous administration ("EO 14074") providing for a National Law Enforcement Accountability Database. And so, for the time being, citizens and journalists are left to collect, aggregate, and disseminate this information until the next administration takes office.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/05/31/2022-11...

https://bjs.ojp.gov/national-law-enforcement-accountability-...

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2026/01/26/police_miscondu...

Obligatory "Don't Talk To The Police"

Video: https://archive.org/details/youtube-d-7o9xYp7eE

Paper: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1998119

HN Threads: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwa...

Well, also just looking at the first page, while I think there are analogous circumstances where this would've been infuriating (e.g., the government executes an unrelated search warrant, discovers both marijuana and the gun and charges him with it), in this case, it seems as though he both surrendered the gun to them and freely admitted to using marijuana which he also directed them to. That said, the search warrant was related to terrorism and it's very likely it would've authorized the agents to search for any drugs and firearms or other weapons.

You would think so. Strangely, even though warrants have to be specific, police are allowed to seize things they come across during the search, even if those things aren’t on the warrant ( https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/496/128/ ).

It’s not a free-for-all, though. If the warrant is for a stolen car, the police can’t open up pill bottles during the search; they have to look in places where a stolen car could be hidden ( https://www.fletc.gov/audio/execution-search-warrant-i-mp3 , do a text search for “elephant”). And the things being seized have to be obvious contraband ( https://www.rothdavies.com/criminal-defense/frequently-asked... ).

someone being a user of a drug, doesnt mean they lose any right to keep and bear a firearm as soon as they start using in perpetuity since, "once a user always a user"

a responsible person should realize they violate more than they vindicate by getting HAF and taking potshots at hallucination delusions and illusions.

bare minimum, put the guns away, for boilerplate in a timelocked safe, until you are on level cognition again.

removing someones right to effective self defense, permanently in complement to a temporary condition is disingenuous considering alcohol use is somehow not a permanently disqualifying condition vs "drug" use being ineffable impairment.

They also need to invalidate, with jail time for legislators and governors, all the flagrantly unconstitutional gun control laws in blue states. A constitutional right is a constitutional right.

Read the second amendment: the constitutional right is about “A well regulated Militia”.

"Well regulated" refers to their ability to shoot straight, and a militia is a civilian force. This language is about civilians being capable of handling weapons.

Keep reading...

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

You can't have a citizen's militia without an armed populace. If 'the people' don't have guns, you don't have a militia.

Yes, again, as part of a well-regulated militia…

No the grammar of the sentence is clear. The right is granted unconditionally. The explanation about a militia is not restricting the right.

> No the grammar of the sentence is clear.

I love when random internet people claim “this is obvious” about a topic that has caused unlimited controversies among jurists for the past two hundred years…

(And the current jurisprudence is clearly against you on that whole topic, as demonstrated by those blue states laws that have not been overturned for being unconstitutional…)

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It’s about the right.

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, _because_ a well regulated Militia, is necessary to the security of a free State.

The point is to prevent the state from monopolizing violence, simple as.

A well regulated militia would determine what types of guns, what ammo, what uniforms, what qualifies a member, etc.

Besides the freedom of the State means that its not subordinate to another State. Not that random people get to shoot at the duly elected State government.

You are simply reading the sentence wrong. Well regulated militia is not condition.

Right, it was juste written down there to decorate the paper of the constitution.

Prefatory clause, justifies the following operative clause. Does not restrict the latter, but explains why it is needed.

regulation, as a constraint vs extremes of behaviour, keeping something within acceptable boundries.

duly elected or not, a government that persues an undue course of action is in need of regulation. the proximal context, a militia occupying cities to enforce the taking of taxes, liberties, and autonomy is a militia requiring regulation.

that regulation manifests as a resistance to application of force that is bane rather than boon to the social order.

that requires the bearing of arms that place the regulating faction [plebe] on equal terms with the offending militia.

> The point is to prevent the state from monopolizing violence, simple as.

Absolutely not. The state and the federal government definitely keep the monopoly of violence: you can't kill someone you believe raped your wife, the government can (under due process but still).

Refusing the government to have the monopoly of violence would mean that other groups independent from the state can exert violence on their fellow American citizens. That's was obviously not the intent here…

A single man is no threat to the state, so your example is wrong.

A militia could be.

To be able to form militia to resist the government, individuals have absolute right to be armed.

The mechanics is really pretty simple.

And yes, I believe that extends to all arms, as is written, otherwise the intent - to be able to form militia which can overpower the government - can not be fulfilled.

That is the constitution.

I am not saying I agree with it, but at the same time, without absolute right to bear arms, the government _will_ demilitarize the people.

> Refusing the government to have the monopoly of violence would mean that other groups independent from the state can exert violence on their fellow American citizens. That's was obviously not the intent here…

> The chief purport of these amendments was to annex to the Constitution a more specific bill of rights. Freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press were thereby secured; ...; the private right to bear arms;

~ History of the United States Volume II - James Schouler 1880

> [T]he right ... to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, ... including the constitutional right to bear arms, shall be secured to and enjoyed by all the citizens of such States or districts without respect to race or color, or previous condition of slavery.

~ Freedmen's Burea Act extension overriding presidential veto - Congress 1866

> The physique and the manly appearance of the American people seems to make them well suited for the military profession. The young people very early get used to traveling and toil. Hunting is the young men's chief pasttime. This not only strengthens them bodily but teaches them to handle guns and thus prepares them for the hardships of war. In addition to this every free man has a right to keep arms in his house and to use them when he wants.

~ America 1818-1820 - Baron Klinkowstrom

> The constitution of the United States contains a number of expres limitation upon the Federal legislative power. In addition to those contained in the first then Amendments relative to freedom of religion, speech, and press, the quartering of troops, the right of the people to assemble, to petition, to keep and bear arms, to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures...

~ Principles of the Constitutional Law of the United States (1917) - Westel Willoughby

> The provision in the federal constitution on the subject is; "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

~ The United States Constitutional Manual (1845) - Mordecai M'Kinney

> I. Personal Rights of Individuals ... The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

~ The Federal Government; it's officers and Their Duties (1871) ~ Ransom H. Gillet

> The constitution makes it the right, the laws make it the duty, of all citizens within certain ages, to bear arms.

~ Education in a Republic (1838) - Edward Everett

> A man may arm himself for a case of probable danger; he may do it with a view to no specific occurrence, and he may do it in self-defense. Who can object to it? The constitution guarantees to every man the right bear arms. No law takes it away, and none every can. The right of self-defense is an inherent one, given by God, to man. It is our own natural right, and, as Blackstone says, no human legislation can ever take it from us.

~ The Life of John J. Crittenden With Selections From His Correspondence and Speeches (US Rep, US Senator, US AG, Gov of KY) (1871) - Edited by His Daughter, Mrs. Capman Coleman

Your perplexity/ ChatGPT quotes won't erase the fact that the blue states laws around guns haven't actually been ruled unconstitutional…

They're not from AI. And that's because most judges are hacks and the supreme court is generally a bunch of corporate hacks who slow walk 2nd amendment challenges.

Ah yes, judges are morons and you are very smart.

I'm convinced now.

...but... it continues, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

OK, if I accept your argument that the 2nd amendment is only about the militia, then what is the militia?

if your answer is the National Guard, that is ahistorical, because the modern National Guard was created in 1903. [0]

the "militia", as it existed at the time the 2nd amendment was passed [1] was:

> each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted)

so if you really want to hang your hat on "the militia" then the 2nd Amendment means women and non-white people aren't allowed to own firearms, and men over 45 need a permit of some kind?

there's a lot of debate to be had about firearms laws, but grammatical nitpicking on this level is really kind of pointless. there is even debate about whether an extra comma changes the meaning [2].

another source you can look at is individual state constitutions. in my home state of Washington, for example [3]:

> The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

drafted in 1889, and could not state more plainly that it applies to individuals.

historically, it has always been an individual right. if you want to try to argue that modern firearms mean the right should be subject to more restrictions, go ahead. but don't try to rewrite history in the process.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792#Second_Mi...

2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United...

3: https://leg.wa.gov/state-laws-and-rules/washington-state-con...

This argument has been beaten to death in the courts for hundreds of years at this point.

Why does everyone think that they are some kind of arm chair lawyer who magically knows the right way to read it, and everyone else is wrong?

As a country, we need to have a serious conversation about guns. This argument just makes noise and gets in the way of actually talking about the real issues.

The two real questions are:

1. what types of guns do we want people to be able to own - where do we as a society draw the line on what’s okay for people to have and what we want to keep in the domain of the government control. This is an incredibly difficult question, especially in a country that was founded in an armed revolution and also suffers mass shootings

2. Under what conditions do we remove someone’s right to own guns?

Let’s talk about that, not beating the wording horse to death for the millionth time.

Clearly you haven't actually read and understood the constitution.

> with jail time for legislators and governors

uh-huh. what provision in the Constitution authorizes this, exactly?

is there anything in contemporaneous writings (Federalist Papers, for example) where someone advocated that a reasonable separation of powers would be "Article 3 judges should have the power to send legislators to jail as a side-effect of ruling that a law is unconstitutional"?

you can argue about the 2nd Amendment all you want, that's one of the oldest pastimes on the internet. but arguing that legislators should be thrown in jail for passing laws you don't like is flashing a big neon "I'm a crank" sign.

The constitution is the highest law of the land. Violating it has consequences. They should be enforced.

> but arguing that legislators should be thrown in jail for passing laws you don't like is flashing a big neon "I'm a crank" sign

Ad hominem aside, this is equivalent to “We should have laws but they should be selectively meaningless”

> The constitution is the highest law of the land. Violating it has consequences. They should be enforced.

yeah, the consequences are that the law in question gets overturned.

you're not arguing for enforcing existing consequences, you're trying to make up a whole new set of consequences.

people get extremely emotional about the topic of firearms, so let's take what you're saying and apply it to a different context, and hopefully you can understand how ludicrous it is.

FDR signed an executive order [0] for internment of American citizens of Japanese ancestry. it was challenged in a case that went to the Supreme Court [1].

SCOTUS upheld that executive order as constitutional. but let's imagine it had gone the other way, and been struck down as unconstitutional.

with the "consequences" you're proposing, a decision striking down EO 9066 would also imply President FDR must go to jail, wouldn't it? after all, he violated the Constitution. that is an insane outcome - a 5-4 SCOTUS vote could send a President to jail?

the Constitution clearly lays out methods of punishing elected officials - impeachment and possible removal by Congress. in your zeal to defend one tiny sentence of the Constitution, you're inventing out of whole cloth a completely separate way of punishing elected officials, one which would itself be unconstitutional.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States

Checks and balances man. If a legislature makes an illegal law it should be struck down by the courts or vetoed. The system is working as designed.

Judges being able to throw people from other branches in jail would cause all kinds of other problems.

> They also need to invalidate, with jail time for legislators and governors, all the flagrantly unconstitutional gun control laws in blue states.

If you’re looking to send people to jail for violating the constitution, how about start with pretty much the entire current administration? That’ll show others that you’re speaking about honestly held beliefs.

Hell, why bring up blue states at all, given this took place in Texas?

It's ridiculous to think that gun laws should be the same in some rural backwater vs in a dense urban area.

Guns are unpopular in blue states for obvious reasons. I suggest you abandon this desire instead of fruitlessly wallowing in rage for the rest of time. It just seems unpleasant.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com