I haven’t really tested it because you can’t edit the comments here, but it seems to be the exact same mod system that was in place at TTAG when Dan left. That means d-r-i-n-k / d-r-i-n-k-i-n-g is one of words that gets you moderated.

And despite the DOJ’s arguments, mar!juana users aren’t inherently “dangerous.”

I’m going to catch some heat for this, but I’m adamant in my stance that mar!juana users can absolutely be dangerous, so let’s avoid overly broad strokes with this pro-2A conversation and try to argue they’re not. I’ve seen it myself several times. Watched a former co-worker (who reported to work high, as later proven in a drug test) put a forklift through a wall due to compromised ability to handle machinery. Knew another person (extended family relative) who was high lose his life as a result of his actions while stoned. And so on.

A person should absolutely be able to have a drink and own a gun. Want to go so far as to get drunk? Go ahead…just don’t handle a gun until you’re sober. Likewise, a person should be able to consume cannab!s and own a gun. Want to go so far as to get baked? Go ahead…just don’t handle a gun until you’re sober. People should not be prohibited from ownership just because they smoked a joint a while back, but carrying a deadly weapon is a deadly serious responsibility.

I myself will enjoy a good ale from time to time, but I carry, so I’m acutely aware of the potential of a DGU leading to charges or lawsuit against me. Any zealous D.A. would likely ask if I were under the influence of any substance at the time I had to defend myself. I would not want to be a defendant who fired his gun soon after toking a joint.

I’m going to catch some heat for this, but I’m adamant in my stance that marijuana users can absolutely be dangerous, so let’s avoid overly broad strokes with this pro-2A conversation and try to argue they’re not. I’ve seen it myself several times. Watched a former co-worker (who reported to work high, as later proven in a drug test) put a forklift through a wall due to compromised ability to handle machinery. Knew another person (extended family relative) who was high lose his life as a result of his actions while stoned. And so on.

A person should absolutely be able to have a drink and own a gun. Want to go so far as to get drunk? Go ahead…just don’t handle a gun until you’re sober. Likewise, a person should be able to consume cannabis and own a gun. Want to go so far as to get baked? Go ahead…just don’t handle a gun until you’re sober. People should not be prohibited from ownership just because they smoked a joint a while back, but carrying a deadly weapon is a deadly serious responsibility.

I myself will enjoy a good ale from time to time, but I carry, so I’m acutely aware of the potential of a DGU leading to charges or lawsuit against me. Any zealous D.A. would likely ask if I were under the influence of any substance at the time I had to defend myself. I would not want to be a defendant who fired his gun soon after toking a joint.

“(e.g., Rahimi, the recent machinegun case, etc.),”

Rahimi seems to have provided a path around Bruen. Rather than strict adherence to Bruen, SC created a new analysis/standard where “kinda/sorta/close enough” is sufficient for “text, tradition, history”; preponderance of the evidence.

Plus, the feds have 90 days to file a cert petition. If PDT wins the election, the last thing the current DoJ would want is a pending cert petition that would be argued *after* they leave office, which the incoming administration could do a swan dive on and thus cause an expansion of Bruen. Better for them to wait and see who wins the election, and if PDT does then they would allow the cert clock to expire before they leave office.