You can’t go out shooting while you’re drinking.

Try telling that to the old farts at the trap range.

I knew one club shooting president who really, really wanted to ban drinking while using any of the ranges. The culture of having a beer while shooting was too entrenched, and the loss of membership numbers from the old guys leaving would have put the club out of business. So it was only banned on the pistol/rifle ranges. Had to leave trap and skeet as they were.

I think the answer lies in the Hunter Biden charges. They can ask the question when purchasing a firearm and then charge with a crime later if they can show that the person lied.

Honestly wouldn't be shocked if they started going after recreational marijuana either. Some big liberal states have legal marijuana.

Yeah, I suppose my point is that it's very difficult to prove in court (especially the "regularly" part), and something would likely have to happen alongside the charge for it to be investigated in the first place. In other words, it seems like mostly theater, although it would be another tool to further charge any leftists that smoke pot in the future.

it is a federal crime to lie on that form

But are you really lying when you think or feel you're answering truthfully?

I.e., what is regular? Once a month? Once a week? These seem more "occasional" than "regular". And even at 3+ times per week, in "regular" territory, what if you stop?

Are you still a regular smoker if you've been clean for a month? Two months? Three or four? Six or a year?

Of course, this is all under the assumption they don't just get ICE'd or Venezuela-boated.

Yep, it was this stupid bullshit that they got Hunter Biden on for his illegal owning of a firearm.

In the past, the Supreme Court has ruled that penalising someone for failing to file or omitting information on a form which would incriminate them violates Amendment 5.

The case was regarding a tax imposed on gambling. People who ran gambling operations had to pay a tax of 10% of the amounts wagered and register with the IRS. At this time, gambling was illegal (almost) nationwide. The IRS then made those registration records available to gaming authorities, who would use them to prosecute anyone who registered.

The court ruled that forcing them to register and then providing this information to gaming authorities to prosecute people violated Amendment 5, and thus a person so convicted for failing to register could assert an Amendment 5 privilege against conviction.

Edit: Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39

The ambiguity serves their cause. I expected for them to give a vague ruling that keeps people worried. The nazis running the government want fear, uncertainty, and doubt because it makes people easier to control. This ruling will be "Sure, go ahead, we prob won't disappear you and your family for no reason at all, trust us, and stay in line"

How is this legal? Even as someone who knows much tighter gun control would save thousands of lives, if they haven’t been committed then it doesn’t matter.

If they have been committed, then it would be legal/fair, although I might disagree

I have heard (not sure) that at least here in California, the rule applies to using pot in the past year, or maybe it was 5 years. I expect it is written down somewhere.

I guess, but "regularly" is hard to prove in court, or at least it was before 2025. Also before 2025, something would have to happen for you to be investigated for that in the first place. I'm sure now they'll just make up a reason to investigate pot smokers.

I do wonder how it would go over in court now. In a jury trial, the prosecution would likely still have to prove that you "regularly" smoke pot, right?

I suppose my point is that it probably won't be very effective in stopping pot smokers from owning guns (especially those that already own guns) if it's just a yes/no on a form.

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.

Thank you for the clarification. I read this when I was half asleep.

gotta be careful with the wording, because "common sense" has such a broad meaning that it can be used by fascist to distort reality.

Snoking is like smoking but with an enya.

Oh you ain't ready to snoke yet my son

I'm in Canada. My doughter got the meningococcal vaccine on her way to university but we had to pay for it. We then paid for it for our son who is in highschool. I got the RSV vaccine last year because I was receiving chemo. We can get the pneumococcal if we are immunecompromised or over...65?

I don't think that they can prevent the shingles once you've had chickenpox. There is a drug on the market, famciclovir, that is extremely effective at treating shingles if you get it within 72 hours of the onset of symptoms. I had shingles in my 30s and got famvir and had a really easy ride.

https://gizmodo.com/online-trolls-actually-just-assholes-all-the-time-stud-1847575210

Here's a Facebook post from 2021 after getting the AstraZeneca Covid vaccine talking about getting all those vaccinations two years before, in 2019.

Fuck you.

The Supreme Court is considering legalizing it

Sort of. Remember that the supreme court often picks up a case after a back and forth, and that the previous 'last stop' of the case helps determine what's going on. The previous court had voided the law, and now dump and co. are trying to revive the case. So if the supreme court was fine with 'legalizing it' they could have done so by dint of letting the lower court's ruling lie.