this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2026

56 points (98.3% liked)

politics

30171 readers

2272 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

outrageousmatter@lemmy.world

aidan@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world

JuBe@lemmy.world

Lasherz12@lemmy.world

Supreme Court unanimously strikes down gun law used to prosecute Hunter Biden (www.foxnews.com)

submitted 5 days ago by sanitation@lemmy.today to c/politics@lemmy.world

23 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 24 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] FullPenguin@lemmy.world 12 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

The court said the old laws focused on people whose substance abuse left them unable to manage their lives, while the federal law broadly covered regular drug users regardless of whether they posed a threat to anyone.

"It’s a good day for the Second Amendment when all nine justices can agree to protect gun rights," Severino said. "The mere fact of illegal drug use, without more, isn’t enough to justify prosecution for gun ownership. Historically, ‘habitual drunkards’ who habitually lost use of their reason could have their rights restricted, but not just regular drinkers — even including Founding Fathers like John Adams, who drank ‘a tankard of hard cider’ with breakfast, or James Madison, who ‘consumed a pint of whisky daily.’

Seems like an incredibly reasonable take.

[–] crandlecan@mander.xyz 11 points 5 days ago (1 children)

It... It almost feels like common sense prevailed??

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net -4 points 5 days ago (3 children)

Yes, it's common sense that US needs more guns.

[–] Bonesince1997@lemmy.world 8 points 5 days ago (2 children)

That overlooks the disarmament of some, on the basis that they are assumed to be dangerous or harmful without ever having done anything to be labeled as such and thus lose rights, while allowing those rights to others.

[+] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net -6 points 5 days ago (3 children)

In sane countries there's no such thing as "right to have guns". Even in US this "right" was never intended to mean that. In sane countries there's plenty of rules around having a gun permit and committing crimes, even non-violent ones, can be a reason to lose one. Consuming or being addicted to illegal substances can absolutely mean you should not be allowed to own deadly weapons.

Americans really do sound like they are constantly on the verge of civil war and taking away someone's gun is basically a death sentence. "You can't disarm drug users. How will they survive the war?" It would be hilarious if t wasn't so sad.

[–] Bonesince1997@lemmy.world 7 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

It's just the equal application of the law in this case.

"Drug users" includes marijuana. It's argued that the vast number of users can't all be seen as dangerous. It's clearly not what it was meant to do.

[–] zaph@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Consuming or being addicted to illegal substances can absolutely mean you should not be allowed to own deadly weapons.

Ah yes because being addicted to a legal substance such as alcohol is leagues safer. No one ever got drunk and murdered anyone amirite. They're not going to get rid of the 2nd amendment any time soon so while it's still there at least we're getting a bit more fairness from the laws.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net -2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Yes, "more guns" is usually the right answer. It's not like guns ever killed anyone, amiright?

[–] zaph@sh.itjust.works 5 points 5 days ago

I assure you there will be the same amount of guns in the US with or without this ruling.

[–] FullPenguin@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Even in US this "right" was never intended to mean that.

I'm sure you're going to start going on about Well Regulated Militias, and yet if someone tells you that they are in a militia that is organized and trains together regularly I bet you're going to double down on your efforts to disarm them.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net -1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

US constitution is a relict that should have been rewritten 150 years go. It contains many incredibly stupid rules like for example legalizing slavery. Pretty embarrassing in XXI century to be honest. The "well regulated militia" is just another stupid term and no one even remembers what it meant. Honestly, I don't really care if you will allow your drug addicts and well regulated militias to keep their guns or not. I'm just saying that the entire situation is stupid and there's nothing "common sense" about any of it.

[–] crandlecan@mander.xyz 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

We agree with your anti-weapon stance. But the USA does not give up its guns. Ergo, access should be equal, not only for the (rich) white middle aged folks...

[–] FullPenguin@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Okay, then can you explain what you meant by:

Even in US this "right" was never intended to mean that.

Because if it's not the well regulated militia thing, I'm unaware.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net -3 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Yes, I mean that they never meant to grant everyone some sacred right to own a gun. There were supposed to be some rules around it. Today no one can agree on what those rules were supposed to be. Is "well regulated militia" an army? Regulated by government? Is it still necessary to the security? If not does it still apply? It's badly written, outdated law. Clinging to it like it's the only thing saving the democracy is silly. The Supreme Court could abolish it as easily as it did all the other rights. We all know why it didn't ($$$).

[–] Pat_Riot@lemmy.today 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

It has been cited many times before that "well regulated" meant sufficiently supplied and did not refer to how it was controlled. It doesn't sound like you live here, so your opinion is not going to be taken very seriously to begin with, but your attempt to use modern vernacular to interpret a 250 year old document will get you ignored or ridiculed. Further, when the words "shall not be infringed" they did not fucking stutter, though infringement has been happening. This ruling reduces that infringement and is in fact a kind of fairness we haven't seen from the Court since Roe vs Wade was originally decided.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net -1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

This ruling reduces that infringement and is in fact a kind of fairness we haven’t seen from the Court since Roe vs Wade was originally decided.

Yes, let's celebrate even more people will have guns in US. Thank god the Supreme Court is still able to make good decisions when it matters 😂

[–] Pat_Riot@lemmy.today 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Again, we really don't care what you think. This is a win for every American. I'm happy for you that you live in a utopia.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 0 points 5 days ago

And I do realize I'm not going to fix America. I just find it funny how you keep buying more guns to protect your rights but failed to actually protect any of them. Now you fight for more guns because that's the only thing you can get. If guns were supposed to change anything, do you really think they would let you buy them?

[–] crandlecan@mander.xyz 0 points 5 days ago

Agreed :)

[–] thecommonistagenda@lemmy.zip 7 points 5 days ago

I’d argue at the very least, the left needs more guns

[–] crandlecan@mander.xyz 5 points 5 days ago

No, I didn't say that!! 😉

But now ppl of colour can have easier access to guns too.

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 9 points 5 days ago (1 children)

This headline is seriously misleading. The court did not "strike down" the entire law.

The law says that users of illegal drugs cannot purchase guns. The court said that the law cannot stop a person who uses marijuana a few times per week from buying a gun. Because marijuana usage is common and normalized now, a gun ban would violate that person's right to keep and bear arms.

This decision does not automatically get Hunter Biden off the hook, because Hunter Biden's case involved a much greater variety of drugs. Hunter will certainly try to litigate this, but success is not certain for him.

[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 6 points 5 days ago

Why would he litigate it, he was pardoned. 0 incentive to put himself into more public scrutiny