I get that marijuana is a weird world when it comes to legalities. States have legalized it, but the feds haven't, which means that it's still technically illegal and the DEA could suddenly decide to swoop in anytime they want.
It also means those who consume marijuana, particularly for medical purposes, are in a bit of a gray area...unless they're gun owners.
There, it doesn't technically matter, and a lot of anti-gun states have made that clear. They're more than willing to treat marijuana like Skittles, legally speaking, but they'll lower the boom on any gun owner who partakes, even if it's doctor-prescribed.
And now, a couple of senators in Kentucky are trying to move the state more in that direction.
Kentucky lawmakers are pushing to change a law that makes it illegal for medical marijuana patients to own a gun.
Medical marijuana became legal in Kentucky on Jan. 1. But federal law makes it illegal to own a gun and use medical marijuana at the same time, causing confusion for some Kentuckians.
Under federal regulations, marijuana use classifies an individual as a "prohibited person," making it illegal to own a firearm.
This prohibition extends to concealed carry permits in Kentucky. Although the state does not require a permit to conceal carry in Kentucky, licenses are issued for those who want to carry in other states. Medical marijuana users do not qualify under federal guidelines.
So, as it stands, technically it's illegal, but unless the feds get involved, there's no much chance of it being a thing. Sure, you can't get a permit, but as noted above, Kentucky is a constitutional carry state, so the permit is only required if you go to a state that requires a permit and has reciprocity with Kentucky.
Recommended
It's a pain for those folks, but it's not the end of the world.
This would change that.
And we can't put all of this on one party or another. The bill was introduced by Democratic Louisville Sen. David Yates and Republican Sen. Stephen West.
That's right, this is bipartisan stupidity.
On one hand, Republicans are less likely to favor marijuana legalization. On the other, Democrats don't like anyone having access to guns. There's something for both parties to like, but that's really the wrong way for the GOP to go.
If you don't favor legalization, then oppose legalization. Fight to overturn existing laws favoring legalization, even if it's only as "medical marijuana."
Yet what West has done is fall into the idea that guns are somehow the problem. Marijuana is fine to have legalized, but those who use it at their doctor's direction shouldn't be allowed the totality of their constitutionally protected rights. That's the logic, if you can really call it that.
The problem is that under the Bruen decision's history, text, and tradition standard, I don't see how you can truly justify a blanket ban on someone owning a firearm because they use a substance at their doctor's direction. While there were laws against carrying while drunk in the time of the nation's founding, that didn't extend to when people were sober, thus making it very different, and it never had anything to do with something someone was instructed to consume by a doctor.
That's why this measure is a step in the wrong direction.
