Tessera
Folgen

Uechi Technocrat

@uechi-technocrat.bsky.social

Uechi Ryu student and teacher. Follower of way too many jam bands, Old school D&D nerd and SF fan. Former Technocrat. Imperfect person; working on it.

774 Posts860 Follower1249 Folgt
Uechi Technocrat@uechi-technocrat.bsky.social · last mo.

Grew up in upstate NY, with parents who were OG Folkies back in the 60s. Pete Seeger and Woody Guthrie songs were always on. Pete was just the local guy my folks took us to and played fun kid songs. I love how truly American he was.

Adam Bonin@adambonin.bsky.social · 2mo ago

Justice Alito (with Kagan) writing an "I don't see what's wrong with someone getting high every day, as long as they can handle it" concurrence in today's Second Amendment case was not on my bingo card.

The mismatch between the Government’s historical analogues and the theory on which the Government defends the constitutionality of §922(g)(3) as applied to respondent is clear. All that we know about respondent’s marijuana use is that he used the drug about every other day. We do not know how much he used, the strength of the marijuana he used, how many times he used it on the days in question, the time of day when he used it, where he used it, or the degree to which this use affected his ability to exercise judgment and perform daily tasks responsibly. As a result, the Government has failed to show that a marijuana user like respondent is incapacitated in a way analogous to the habitual drunkards that the Government’s analogues regulated. Marijuana consumption is increasingly common in this country. Many States have legalized its use and sale, and although possession of the drug remains a federal crime, very few persons are convicted of that offense each year. The Government has largely tolerated the production and sale of marijuana when done in accord with state law, and it has allowed a multi-billion-dollar marijuana business to develop.1 For its part, Congress has restricted the use of appropriated funds to prevent States from implementing laws that allow the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana, or to prosecute certain parties —————— 1See Congressional Research Service, L. Sacco & J. Lampe, The Federal Status of Marijuana and the Policy Gap With States 2 (2026).ALITO, J., concurring in judgment that produce, distribute, or possess marijuana in compliance with state law.2 In these circumstances, marijuana use today is like alcohol use at the founding. It is widespread and increasingly considered socially acceptable in many quarters. And from a practical standpoint, law enforcement widely tolerates the use of marijuana. These similarities underscore the deficiency of the Government’s analogues. To succeed, the Government would need to identify a regulatory principle that justified disarmament of persons who are relevantly similar to the occasional marijuana user. But whereas the Government’s analogues allowed disarmament only of those whose extreme use of an intoxicant (alcohol) incapacitated them habitually, §922(g)(3) as applied to respondent allows disarmament of those who do no more than “regularly us[e]” a similar intoxicant (marijuana) unlawfully. In attempting to rebuff a Second Amendment challenge, the Government need not identify a historical twin or precise precursor. Rahimi, 602 U. S., at 692. Still, the Government must cite analogues that are “relevantly similar” and that therefore furnish a basis for inferring that a challenged law is consistent with the historical understanding of the right that the Second Amendment codified. Here, the Government’s analogues are too far afield to justify the application of §922(g) to a marijuana user like respondent. We need not say more to decide this case, and I would for that reason say no more. I accordingly would affirm on this ground alone.
Chris Geidner@chrisgeidner.bsky.social · 2mo ago

BREAKING: SCOTUS holds that federal law banning firearm possession by addicts cannot be used to prosecute an occasional marijuana user from possessing guns. There are no dissents. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

ACLU@aclu.org · 2mo ago

NEW: Congress has introduced a bill that would prohibit the government from coercing platforms, broadcasters and other companies into censoring our speech. This critical legislation would defend our First Amendment rights from unconstitutional government censorship.

Coach Gowron@coachgowron.com · 2mo ago

Honor those who have gone before you, and who fought their battles so you could fight yours. Live honorably so that you may one day be remembered well by those who come after you. The past is part of us, and we will become part of that past, and that is glorious.