Reefer Alliance

     Sometimes, the Fates serve something up that's so on the nose, you know the fix is in.  Case (literally) in point, United States v. Hemani, now before the U. S. Supreme Court.

     Uncle Sam says Ali Danial Hemani is a pot-swilling terrorist supporter, who shouldn't be allowed to own guns on account of being an habitual drug user, since, as question 21.f. on the BATFE Form 4473 quaintly asks and warns, "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside."  It's right there in plain text:* even pot use is a downcheck, and the buyer will not, in fact, be purchasing a firearm that day if the answer "Yes."

     On the other side, the defense says he's an almost stereotypical Texas gun owner, a pillar of his community, active in religious organizations and youth sports, who just happens to enjoy a little herb from time to time.

     I have no idea if either of these description is anywhere close to reality.  I never met him and I haven't been following the case.  What I do know is that we've got the Feds on one side, and on the other, everyone from the NRA to NORML, from the ACLU to Gun Owners of America is weighing in or even filing Friend of the Court Briefs.

     It's one to watch, and in the meantime, always ask, "Who brought these brownies?" before digging in.
________________________
* Of course, the current version of the same form still gives you three choices for the answer to question 14, Sex: Male, Female or Non-Binary.  Presumably anyone who ticks the third box vanishes from Federal sight immediately, since the Federal government only recognize the first two options now, and the sale is denied on account of there not being anyone buying.  And they were just right there...!