October 22, 2025 • 34 mins
Alicia Garcia, co-founder of The 2nd Syndicate, joins Dan to discuss the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court taking up a case on whether individuals who regularly use marijuana can own guns.
Supreme Court considers gun ownership for marijuana smokers | AP News
Empowering Gun Rights - The Second Syndicate
Supreme Court considers gun ownership for marijuana smokers | AP News
Empowering Gun Rights - The Second Syndicate
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This is Dan Caplis and welcome to today's online podcast
edition of The Dan Caplis Show. Please be sure to
give us a five star rating if you'd be so kind,
and to subscribe, download, and listen to the show every
single day on your favorite podcast platform. I just have
to laugh, Right, has there ever been a better time
to do a talk show? I mean, there's just so
much going on at the same time. I'm looking at
(00:21):
this headline on CNN right now. You think Martians just
landed entire East Wing being demolished.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Ballroom cost up by one hundred million, And so if
you have thoughts on President Trump now that tearing down
part of the White House to put up this ballroom,
let me know, I just don't see the issue.
Speaker 1 (00:40):
I mean, it's fun to kind of watch these lefty
heads explode over anything. You'd have the same kind of
panicked headline, right if Trump cured cancer, they'd come up
with some negative spin on it.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
You know, Trump cures cancer, hospitals will be devastated.
Speaker 1 (00:53):
I mean, that's how far gone, that's how insane they are. Yeah, So,
I mean, what's the beef about. It's all being publicly funded.
The White House obviously needs a big ballroom. Trump's taking
action that's going to benefit every president. Every lots of presidents,
not everyone, have done some pretty major things, right Ryan,
(01:13):
like add the Oval Office, add the West Wing, do
all sorts of big things.
Speaker 3 (01:20):
So cool bowling alley, Yeah, yeah, just all of them.
I don't remember protests at that time. Yeah, No, that's
how the bowling thing. That's right.
Speaker 1 (01:29):
And you know that this speaker really has turned out
right to be very very good.
Speaker 4 (01:36):
President Trump's gonna had the greatest improvement to the White
House in the history of the building, is since since
it was originally constructed in eighteen hundred. The ballroom is
going to be glorious. It's going to be used for everybody.
And by the way, hey Democrats, if you win the
White House back, you get to use it too. This
is for the American people, and he's using private.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
Funds to do it. How in the world could they
oppose that.
Speaker 4 (01:58):
The only reason, the only logical reason, is because they
have Trump arrangement syndrome.
Speaker 1 (02:02):
And that's what explains a lot of this. Yeah, And
it's fun to watch, right because it helps it helps
defeat the left by exposing him as being naughty. You
wouldn't believe how many people out there still think the
Democratic Party is what it was twenty thirty forty years ago.
And I'm not saying it was great then, but as
a former Democrat, I can tell you you know, there
are so many people out there still believe that because
(02:23):
guess what, politics isn't a big priority for them. They
try not to pay any attention to it. And I'm
not being at all critical, but that's just how they
live their lives. And then they'll be good citizens and
show up on election day. But yeah, they have no
idea if this Democratic Party has become this whax. So
there's so much opportunity here. Three out three someone three
(02:45):
eight two five five The number text d an five
seven seven three nine. Looks like President Trump getting tough
with Putin again, which is great to see, right, really
great to see. And as a blessed are the peacemakers.
And no same person wants a World War three or
or a mass war in Ukraine. But let's face it,
you know, Putin is a rapist and murderer. He has
(03:07):
raped and pillaged Ukraine. He is evil, he is Satan
on earth, and he shouldn't be awarded with an inch
of territory. But because Europe decided it wouldn't put boots
on the ground and fight for Ukraine, Putin's going to
get territory. And the sooner Trump's able to end it
and save more lives, the better. That's what this all
boils down to. But Putin now being the devil, is
(03:29):
just being greedy. I mean, one inch is greedy, right,
But under these circumstances, yeah, Putin's being greedy. So Trump,
you know, is just now turning up the heat through
sanctions and looks like he's got a whole tomahawks right now.
But go he has authorized the use of some other long,
longer range type missiles that in fact Ukraine started using
yesterday to great effect. All right, now here's the biggie.
(03:52):
The biggie is US Supreme Court. Yesterday did something that
surprised a lot of people. It decided to take a
case that has a fiest implications for Colorado. Because the
Supreme Court is going to decide whether the federal government
can deprive habitual marijuana users of their Second Amendment right
(04:13):
to possess a firearm. That is the one narrow issue
before the US Supreme Court. And so want to get
your take on that. How do you want to see him?
Rule three h three someone three eight two five five
takes Dan five seven seven three nine. In the first hour,
I made everybody the smartest person in the room on
this case because I gave you facts that goes so
far by beyond the headlines, and they're such interesting facts.
(04:36):
But before I do that again quickly, I want to
get to some of our texters. Dan to Dan five
seven seven three nine. I can smell the pot smoke
from here. Legalization is obviously negative and negatively impacted most
of our country. There is no doubt about that, which
is why you see more states now not doing it. Dan,
I think there needs to be a clarification. Is a
(04:58):
person who has a martini every night or the person
who takes a couple of hits off a joint every
night a habitual user? I believe the term should be
an excessive habitual user. Texture You may be onto something there,
because the fact that US Supreme Court took this case
suggests to me at least that it is going to
(05:21):
uphold this law. But I think it will narrow it
in some ways. Will it narrow it in that way?
Will it narrow it in that way and say, wait
a second, it's not enough to be a regular user.
There has to be evidence that the person is regularly
impaired by it. Is that where the Supreme Court is
(05:43):
going to go with it? Is that where you think
they should go with it? And as an earlier Texter said, Ryan,
what do you think the left does with this? I
mean the left wants to strip us all of our guns?
So is Pollless, Bennett, Hicker lebar. Are they all going
to come out and say, yeah, Supreme Court, you should
strip habitual marijuana users of their Second Amendment rights. Do
(06:03):
you think we'll see him do that? Huh? Dan? Keyword
illegal use? Yes? And under federal law in Colorado right now,
marijuana sale is illegal and possession is illegal. So that's
why it's illegal use three or three seven to one,
three eight, two, five five the number? Dan, Nothing happened
(06:26):
to Hunter and he was using hard drugs and lied
on his back background check. Wait a second, I thought
he was convicted on those charges. It's been a while,
wasn't he convicted? He was convicted on it.
Speaker 5 (06:35):
He was chartened by his father though, right?
Speaker 1 (06:36):
Oh yeah, so pardon by the pen ye pardoned by the.
Speaker 3 (06:41):
Although that might have been the one part and that
Joe intentionally did and none of the others.
Speaker 1 (06:46):
Yeah, yeah, no, he may have done that one. Uh. Dan,
I'm all in favor of Scode is taking this case
on two a habitual marijuana users, and I agree the
two don't mix. I do this gets little complicated. My
question is what's the threshold used and how do the
courts prove? It makes no difference to me since I
don't use, but surely there has to be a threshold.
(07:08):
Fascinating question from our texter, and I do expect the
US Supreme Court in this decision to establish some kind
of threshold. But in the underlying case. In the underlying case,
the reason the Feds were able to bring the charge
was the defendant confess to being a regular marijuana user,
(07:30):
said he used every other day. So that's how they
got the habitual marijuana user. Now, they also found cocaine
in his place when the FBI rated this terrorist suspect's home,
but they didn't have any admission or other proof about
regular cocaine use. And he was a dealer too, so
they didn't know whether it was for sale, possession, et cetera.
(07:51):
So that's why this case is all about marijuana, because
that's the one thing they can prove is habitual marijuana user.
Let's go back to the phone lines, Ed in Kenyon City,
you're on the Day Capitalist Show.
Speaker 6 (08:04):
Yes, sir, well, I was kind of curious because you
were saying that they can put you in a category. Yes,
to determine whether you're who determines who puts you in
that category. They can't ask your doctor. That would be
a violation of hippa. What are they going to do?
Speaker 1 (08:21):
Ask you?
Speaker 6 (08:22):
You can exercise yourself the memory.
Speaker 7 (08:23):
And be quiet.
Speaker 8 (08:24):
So then who does the determination?
Speaker 1 (08:26):
Well? What a good question from Ed, because what this
goes to is, Okay, what can the legislators do because
they're the ones who put you in a category. Right,
we're talking about laws passed by legislatures, and that the
courts have said legislatures can decide that a certain category
of persons pose a special danger when in possession of firearms.
(08:49):
And a historical reference made by the Trump administration is
to alcoholics and going back to you know, the time
the Second Amendment was conceived and ratified, there were laws
limiting the ability of alcoholics. They call them drunkards in
the law at the time to possess firearms. So to
answer your question ed, and we've got to hit this hardbreak,
it's the legislature that gets to identify the category and
(09:13):
then the court gets to say whether that category has
been adequately supported by the facts, So whether that the
legislature had a sound basis to decide this whole category
of humans lose their Second Amendment rights because they present
a special danger when they possess those weapons. When we
(09:36):
come back, I'll tell you about some of the other
categories of folks cited by the Trump administration and their brief.
But the big question for you is, Hey, do you
agree that habitual marijuana users should lose their Second Amendment
rights in Colorado and other places? Because that's what the
Trump administration is arguing for, and the Supreme Court they
(09:57):
just took the case. You're on the Dan Kapli Show.
Speaker 5 (10:01):
And now back to the Dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 1 (10:04):
Glad you're here. Big issue now before the US Supreme Court,
they just took the case, and that is, should a
habitual marijuana user in Colorado lose their Second Amendment right?
Can the federal government forbid a habitual marijuana user from
possessing firearms three or three seven one three A two
(10:25):
five five the number text d An five seven seventy
three nine. Now, this Supreme Court decision, of course, will
affect people in every state. But since we have quote
legal marijuana on a state level still illegal on a
federal level, you know this is going to affect a
lot of Colorado. So what do you think? Do you
think a person should lose their Second Amendment right if
(10:46):
they're a habitual marijuana user. So what I've been doing
in this show is deep diving the case, including the
factual background, the underlying defendant who was a terrorism suspect,
and that's really fascinating stuff, so you can pick it
up off the podcast. We're going to focus now on
what do you think is the Trump administration right to
(11:07):
be pursuing this case and trying to take away those
Second Amendment rights? Three or three seveone three eight two
five five text d An five seven seven three nine.
Let's go to Justin in Littleton. You're on the dan
KAPLA shall welcome Justin.
Speaker 7 (11:23):
Hi dam an interesting topic. I think I heard you
say you have owned a firearm. You know what a
forty four to seventy three form is the one when
you buy it, you got to fill it out.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
Oh, I must have filled out a bunch of them
because I have a bunch of guns.
Speaker 7 (11:37):
Yeah, same brother, you should look at that again. I'm
looking at it now. It says a bunch of different things.
So I guess I'm confused on why the possession versus
the buying of the firearm. Like we have to be
legal citizen or residence. You can't be adjudicated mentally defective.
Let's see what else it is. You can't have domestic violence, felonies,
(12:00):
drug possession which includes marijuana or alcohol. I think it
also says in the forum, and you actually should pull
this form up and look at it. I just fall
on recently, so I'm kind of better acquainted with it.
But why are we going to the possession things of
the purchase, because it's already illegal purchase to come with
all those limitations in a couple more than.
Speaker 1 (12:19):
Mentioned right, Because in this case, and in the case
of I think most arrest scenarios, it's going to be
the possession. It's going to be the possession that they
can prove automatically. Now, maybe they go ahead. And I
don't know why they'd want to prosecute the purchase when
it's in the same section as the possession, And I
(12:41):
don't believe they'd be allowed to double charge that. So
is there something that concerns you, my friend, with it
being charged on the basis of the possession?
Speaker 7 (12:51):
Well, I think it. You know your parlance tipso facto
already is a legal and it says user of marijuana
on it. So I guess that means if you use
it once, it says user or like addicted. So it says,
you know, what if you smoke and I don't do this.
Maybe I have in the past, but certainly not for
a long time. What if you smoke one joint a year, Yeah,
(13:12):
you're still a user?
Speaker 1 (13:13):
Right?
Speaker 9 (13:14):
No?
Speaker 7 (13:14):
And what if you had a gun at the house
at the same time?
Speaker 1 (13:16):
Well, what a great question. And as we were talking
about earlier, No, what the administration is arguing is that
the end they're arguing correctly on this point is that
the courts over time have narrowed the definition. So what
USC nine to twenty two G three says is that
possession of a firearm is prohibited by a person who
(13:37):
is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance. Now,
what the courts have done is narrow that term, the
definition of that term unlawful user to habitual user. So
somebody who just uses it once is not going to
be subject to having their two way rights taken away.
(13:58):
You have to be able to prove under this federal
law somebody is a regular user. That's where the special
danger is created. That's the argument.
Speaker 7 (14:09):
Well, I guess all the question will be. Let's say
you have ten guns at home, you go to Amsterdam,
you know, get blasted for a week and come back,
or you in possession of that weapon if it was
in your house even though you weren't in physical proximity
to it.
Speaker 1 (14:21):
No, in that charge A great question, my friend, and
thank you lines of gen want to get everybody in
that charge is never going to stick because, okay, you
went to Amsterdam. I don't know why you do that
if you want to do dope, because Colorado's laws are
more liberal. But anyway, yeah, it was a one time thing.
It was a blitz. Right Whereas to be convicted under
(14:44):
this law, to be deprived of your two A rates
under this law, you have to be a regular, habitual user.
And again it comes back to the claimed justification, the
rationale for the law, which is the danger the special
danger post. And then the administration argues in great details,
citing many medical authorities as to the special dangers posed
(15:08):
by possession of a firearm by an habitual, regular marijuana user,
and they argue in the brief to the Supreme Court
altered perception of time, decrease, short term memory, impaired perception,
and motor skills with extreme use, panic attacks, paranoid thought,
so hallucinations. And then the administration comes back to this
argument repeatedly that there's increased danger to law enforcement from
(15:33):
habitual drug users possessing weapons. Eric and Castle Rock here
on the Dan Kapitli Show, we may have to finish
on the other side.
Speaker 10 (15:40):
Fire away, Dan bil Quick, Yeah, I agree with the case,
and I think that if the state will not allow
me to conceal carry my weapon because I'm under any
amount of influence of alcohology, I'd be no different from
marijuana number two if I'm an habitual alcoholic. I also
agree that they should not have the same rights either,
(16:01):
So I do agree with this game.
Speaker 1 (16:03):
Eric appreciate the call. And it's interesting the Trump administration
bases a lot of its argument to the Supreme Court
regarding marijuana, bases it on alcohol and again makes the
point that historically, since the Second Amendment was ratified, at
the time the Second Amendment was conceived of that it
was routine to bar what they called quote drunkards alcoholics
(16:26):
from possessing firearms. And so what the administration's arguing is
this is the modern equivalent. Yeah, three out three eight
seven one three eight two five five text DN five
seven seven three nine. Hey, I don't want to pop
anybody on right now. That'd be unfair to them, because
we're about to break and we're going to have a
two way special guest on the other side as well,
get her take on this, and then we'll come back
(16:49):
and we'll continue this deep dive. I think it's one
of the most interesting issues in a long long time.
And again, as a Texter said, are we going to
see Polis and others on the left come out now
and argue in favor of this because it would mean
depriving more people of two A rights. Ryan's speaking of which,
and believe me, listen, I understand Polish ideologically horrible for
(17:10):
this state, extremely arrogant, you know, all those things. But
have you seen the latest picture of them, Ryan, of
whom polish which one another one in the post today?
Speaker 5 (17:23):
What does it look like?
Speaker 1 (17:24):
He looks really good? Oh?
Speaker 5 (17:26):
Was that empic?
Speaker 1 (17:27):
I don't know what. I'm not saying that. All I'm
saying is he looks really good, Okay, And I mean
he's still just as bad for the state, right, sure,
I'm just saying he looks really good. How do you
think he got a stylist or something. Yeah, No, it's fascinating,
just you know, really, I don't know how to describe it,
(17:49):
but yeah, he's looking really good in that picture. Doesn't
change the fact he's horrible for us as a people
in the state. But just want to be there, not
that it matters. Three or three someone three A two
five five takes dam five seven seven three nine when
we come back. Yeah, we'll talk to A two A
(18:10):
expert about this as well. And what do you think
should somebody lose their Second Amendment rights because they're habitual
marijuana user. You're on the Dan Kapla Show.
Speaker 5 (18:22):
You're listening to the Dan Kapliss Show podcast.
Speaker 1 (18:25):
You're here one of the more interesting cases in a
very long time to hit the US Supreme Court? Should
you lose your Second Amendment rights if you're an habitual
marijuana user? So I've been deep diving it throughout the
show and you can pick it up off the podcast
and get into some facts you're not going to hear
anywhere else about this case. It is really remarkable how
(18:47):
it even came to be. But Alicia Garcia is kind
enough to join us from the Second Syndicate to get
her take on this. Alicia, Welcome to the Dan Caplis Show.
Speaker 9 (18:58):
Hi Dan, how are you? And Anthal?
Speaker 1 (19:00):
Yeah, by the way, Oh forgive me, sorry for that really,
but let me ask you how do you feel about this?
How do you how do you feel about the Trump
administration going to the Supreme Court and saying habitual marijuana
users should lose their Second Amendment right to possess a firearm?
Speaker 9 (19:16):
I do not agree with it. As a matter of fact.
I think it's fogus.
Speaker 5 (19:19):
And this is.
Speaker 9 (19:20):
Another reason as to why we have to get away
from this. You know, giving status to political figures is godlike.
There's you know, there's this misconception that just because I'm
a Second Amendment supporter that I am this right winged extremist.
I am, you know, diehard maga. I'm you know, win
(19:41):
or lose, we still vote republican kind of an ideology.
And we have to get away from this narrative because
you should, we should exercise discernment and as people, if
you have the right to go out, have some drinks
with your friends, you know, have a good time, wake
up the next day, get up, go to work, you
should still you should also have a right to exercise
(20:03):
a right to consume cannabis. And I'm very well versed
in the cannabis industry because one of my very close
and dear friends of over twenty years is a huge
cannabis person. He actually runs a couple of cannabis businesses,
so I know a lot about about it. And to me,
it seems like, you know, we're demonizing something that shouldn't
(20:23):
be demonized and if it's if it's okay on the
state level, it should be okanna federal levels.
Speaker 1 (20:28):
Alicia Garcia, our guest from the second syndicate, Is there
any point at which, and I expect the Supreme Court
will be having this debate in the open, is there
any point at which regular alcohol consumption or regular marijuana
consumption should just should deprive somebody of their Second Amendment.
Speaker 9 (20:47):
Right, I don't believe so. I don't believe so. And
the reason that I feel that way is because, you know,
when we're asking people if it's something they can function on,
I mean not with sounding crafts about it. People aren't
in the alley ways, losing their homes and their mortgages,
performing you know, egregious acts for a hit of cannabis.
(21:10):
You know, I mean, it's not like their teeth are
running out of their face, they're stealing, their selling their bodies.
They're doing these things because of a drug. That's not
the way cannabis works. And as a matter of fact,
it has confounding information that shows that cannabis is actually beneficial.
And I mean, to be real, anything in moderation should
be fine. Any excess of anything should be bad.
Speaker 6 (21:32):
Right.
Speaker 9 (21:33):
If you're a chronic alcoholic, that's that's awful. Right, If
you can't function and do anything worldwide because you are,
you know, consuming cannabis, that's another issue. However, I'm not
seeing and feel free people. If you want to reach
out to me and talk to me about it, I
love open debate, because that is how we change things, right,
(21:53):
We have to have open discussions. But I don't see
people losing their livelihoods over cannabis. A lot of it,
you know, unable to do those things.
Speaker 1 (22:02):
Yeah, I see a lot of it. I see a
lot of dead bodies from legalized marijuana in my work
doing catastrophic injury and death where people are killed on
the highways by high drivers and things like that. So, Alicia,
if we were having this separate debate over, you know,
should we have legalized marijuana in Colorado, I'd say it's
been one of the biggest disasters in state history. When
(22:24):
we're talking about, hey, should somebody lose their Second Amendment
right because they're a regular user of marijuana? You know,
That's where I think we get into some different issues
more particular to that defendant that I think we'll see
the US Supreme Court address, such as, wait a second, Okay,
this particular regular user of marijuana, you know, does it
(22:48):
affect them in a certain way. It'll be interesting to
see if the Supreme Court goes there. But Alicia, I'd
love to get your reaction to this, because the Trump
administration is arguing, hey, since the time the Second Amendment
was ratified. You know, there have been laws all over
the country restricting the ability of alcoholics as a category,
not individual alcoholics, but as a category to possess firearms.
(23:13):
So how would you react to that argument to the
court that if somebody is an alcoholic, they can be
deprived of their two way right.
Speaker 9 (23:23):
Well, I would like to see cases where they are,
because here's the truth you were talking about. I agree
with you in the sense that you shouldn't be under
any influence of anything that's going to be controlling someone's life,
like driving a car as a privilege right, we get
a driver's license to exercise a privilege. If you are
(23:44):
under the influence of something that's intoxicating you to the
point that you can't function, that that's a privilege. However,
the right to self defense and the right to defend
yourself with firearms is not a privilege. It is a
constitutional on human rights. Talking about exercising and putting restrictions
on a constitutional right, that's different. That doesn't impact you
(24:06):
the way it should if you are, you know, losing
the right to drive a vehicle. Now, I think we
as a society should not be doing things that jeopardize
the public health of people if you are a drunk.
That's why they have UBER, That's why they have you know,
these car services. You shouldn't be operating a motor vehicle
on the under the influence. However, do I think it
(24:29):
hinders somebody or should hinder somebody from being able to
protect and defend themselves.
Speaker 1 (24:33):
I don't believe so. See, you are one thousand percent
right about the fact that two A is a right. Right,
It's a fundamental right, whereas a driver's license is not.
And so as the Trump administration argues to the Supreme Court,
you know, you should have to show an awful lot
to a court before you're allowed to infringe on that
(24:54):
two way right. And that's just where the Trump administration
comes back to, Hey, regular marijuana, you increases dangers in
all these different areas. So it'll be interesting to see
where the court comes down on that. I don't think
they would have taken this case unless they intended to
uphold the restriction to some extent. But how far they
go with it, I guess we'll find out together.
Speaker 8 (25:16):
Indeed, yeah, well we will.
Speaker 1 (25:18):
Hey really appreciate you popping on. Tell folks how they
can follow you.
Speaker 9 (25:23):
You can find me on our website at the Second
Syndicate dot com the Two Indie Syndicate dot com. We
are a grassroots Second Amendment organization that is here to
protect and defend and educate Colorado in their Second Amendment rights.
I also have a Concil Carry class if I teach
every weekend. It is Concil Carrey Class, Denver dot com.
If you would like to come and train with me,
I am one of only four women in the nation
(25:45):
that is certified for u seca's Defensive Pistol Program instructors.
So it is a very very high level defensive pistil capability.
So if you would like to step your game up,
if you would like to renew or obtain your confilled
HANDSOD permit, if you want to even brush upon your skills,
feel free to find me there as well. You can
find me on all my socials at Boomstick Babe, round
the Boomstick Babe. You'll find me anywhere.
Speaker 1 (26:06):
Alicia, thank you, appreciate the time.
Speaker 9 (26:09):
You have a great evening. Dan, thank you for your time.
Speaker 1 (26:11):
Thank you you take care and to this day, Ryan,
I don't know if anybody has seen anything more impressive
or as I would say hotter than that video of
my wife knocking down targets. Look out, really impressive. Don't
mess with any Mama bear three or three seven three
(26:31):
eight two five five text d A N five seven
seven three nine This one, this is really going to
get wild. And the US Supreme Court when they decided
to take the case, I think they were signaling they're
going to to some extent uphold this law. Eric in Denver,
you're on the dan kaplis. She'll welcome.
Speaker 8 (26:50):
Yeah, thank you for taking my call. First of all,
I am a veteran. Number two is that they made
these lulls legal for people to buy a pot here
in this state and stuff folks. And now you're going
to turn this around on law abiding people that are
(27:10):
maybe marijuana users in their own home and a promamcy
of their own home just having a firearm in their
house just protect themselves. And now you're going to turn
this against them that you made law illegal and you
want to not allow of people to have a fire room.
Speaker 1 (27:29):
Yeah, and first, thank you for your service, Eric. And yes,
the administration's arguing that there's a special danger posed by
people who are regular marijuana users and a special danger
to police as well in allowing such folks to have firearms.
So that's the argument to the Supreme Court. When you
talk about legal obviously, my friend is you know, it's
(27:51):
marijuana sale, possession, et cetera. Still illegal at the federal level,
but legal now at the state level.
Speaker 8 (27:58):
As you say, right, you know, well, a lot of
people don't know the difference and stuff. And again they're
to go to a pod shop and in their neighborhood
walking to buy it up.
Speaker 1 (28:10):
Yeah, no, you're you're right about that, my friend. Again,
thank you for your service. Now, real world, if the
US Supreme Court finds that this law is constitutional and
keywords constitutional as applied to the defendant in this case,
and when we come back for more calls and text,
I'll explain what that means. Though I think you've already
figured it out. I don't expect this to be widely enforced.
(28:36):
I think the federal government wants this on the books
so they can use it in particular cases like the
underlying case. Here was a case involving a terrorism suspect,
you know, who had been linked to the Iranian Revolutionary
Guard who had traveled to Iran to celebrate the life
of Solomony after the US had killed Solomoni. So I
(28:59):
think the wants it on the books just to be
able to prosecute it in certain cases, but the broader
principle would still apply to be sitting there in the law.
Do you think it should be? You're on the Dankpla Show.
Speaker 5 (29:12):
And now back to the Dankaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 1 (29:15):
Wow what a day. Wish you had a couple of
more hours talking about this huge US Supreme Court case
they just agreed to take it. I can a habitual
marijuana user have their to a right strip and it's
it's a big, big deal obviously for Colorado. So I've
done a deep dive throughout the show. You can pick
it off the podcast and we'll follow up on a tomorrow.
(29:35):
David Coppel, who's kind of the iconic two A expert,
is going to join us during tomorrow show to get
his take on the Trump administration argument to the US
Supreme Court that yes, this particular federal law should be upheld,
that it is constitutional USC nine two two G three.
(29:57):
So I will continue to talk about a great text
calls coming in Dan, what if the administration is doing
this hoping to lose and expanding the protections for to
a by doing so, I love our listeners. They just
think outside the box. That's a beautiful thing. I don't
believe that's the case here, because the underlying case involves
(30:20):
a major terrorism suspect who was rated by the FBI
because he was linked to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. And
when they conducted the raid, they found large amounts of
marijuana and cocaine and other drugs along with weapons, and
so they're using this charge habitual marijuana user to get
(30:44):
extra ten years in jail. So I think they want
to win. I think they want to have the tool
available for a relative handful of suspects in the future.
I don't think they have any intention of trying to
enforce it widespread, but hey, when the laws on the
books and if the constitutionality is upheld, you know, then
(31:07):
it might be enforced in a broader way. Great question though,
Thank you for that, my friend. I do think they
want to win on this, and I've read their underlying
brief into the US Supreme Court. It is superbly done,
and it's really deeply rooted in history and in medicine.
You've got the administration and they document it with their
sources in their brief to the US Supreme Court asking
(31:29):
the court to take this case on, you know, documenting
medically the effect that regular because it has to be
regular marijuana use, right, the effect that regular marijuana use
has on most people, and therefore how it puts them
in a more dangerous class, argues the administration. When it
comes to possessing firearms. They document, you know, altered perception
(31:53):
of time, decrease short term memory, impaired perception and motor skills,
panic attacks with heavier use, paranoid thoughts, hallucinations, and they
document all of this, so they seem very serious about
it in their briefing, Dan, what about a person who's
prescribed and a regular user of powerful narcotics. Shouldn't they
be allowed their two ay rights to defend themselves in
(32:14):
their own home. And again this comes back to the
argument of the administration that that wait a second, this
habitual use, this habitual use of these controlled substances makes
a person more dangerous when it comes to possession of firearms. Again,
you get back to the question of how broadly they
(32:36):
intend to enforce it. But that's their argument in support
of the law. Then we get a texture on Hey, Dan,
did you hear that the Denver post owner has passed
you on office RNT a couple of months and cities
now fighting to get their money, etc. Yeah, and we're
going to cover that in some more depth. Thank you
Texter for that.
Speaker 10 (32:55):
Dan.
Speaker 1 (32:55):
It sounded with that guest like you were saying two
way guest. No, I was saying too a guest, But
thank you testing about pointing that out right? Yes? Two
a second amendment? Right? They had two things. What about
the mushroom users that are state wisely legalized? Are they
going to let government do continual drug testing unregistered gun owners?
(33:16):
A couple of great questions when you talk about this
goofiness of legalizing psilocybin use. Yeah, same thing under this
federal law under USC nine to twenty two G three,
if you are a regular user of a controlled substance,
you cannot legally possess a firearm under this particular federal law.
(33:40):
It doesn't matter what the substance is. The reason the
US Supreme Court case involves marijuana is because of two things.
They found marijuana when they rated this terrorism suspects home,
and he admitted to regular use. That's the key. They
found a lot of cocaine, but he didn't admit to
regular use, and he was a drug dealer, so they
couldn't be sure. But he admitted to regular marijuana use,
(34:03):
which is an essential element of this offense. We have
some great textures Dan's moronic argument to conflate alcohol and marijuana.
Thank you Texter for using my word though he didn't
use trademark. There, s'mron, I've labeled a smart person saying
a moronic thing, but thank you for using my word there,
(34:28):
Dan is Mara wanna there are some typos there. Listen,
this topic is so hot and it's so important. We're
going to continue to deep dive tomorrow. Thank you Ryan
for your great work. David Koppo will join us on
this tomorrow. Have a wonderful, safe evening. Catch you tomorrow
and for on the Dan Kapla Show
This is Dan Caplis and welcome to today's online podcast
edition of The Dan Caplis Show. Please be sure to
give us a five star rating if you'd be so kind,
and to subscribe, download, and listen to the show every
single day on your favorite podcast platform. I just have
to laugh, Right, has there ever been a better time
to do a talk show? I mean, there's just so
much going on at the same time. I'm looking at
(00:21):
this headline on CNN right now. You think Martians just
landed entire East Wing being demolished.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Ballroom cost up by one hundred million, And so if
you have thoughts on President Trump now that tearing down
part of the White House to put up this ballroom,
let me know, I just don't see the issue.
Speaker 1 (00:40):
I mean, it's fun to kind of watch these lefty
heads explode over anything. You'd have the same kind of
panicked headline, right if Trump cured cancer, they'd come up
with some negative spin on it.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
You know, Trump cures cancer, hospitals will be devastated.
Speaker 1 (00:53):
I mean, that's how far gone, that's how insane they are. Yeah, So,
I mean, what's the beef about. It's all being publicly funded.
The White House obviously needs a big ballroom. Trump's taking
action that's going to benefit every president. Every lots of presidents,
not everyone, have done some pretty major things, right Ryan,
(01:13):
like add the Oval Office, add the West Wing, do
all sorts of big things.
Speaker 3 (01:20):
So cool bowling alley, Yeah, yeah, just all of them.
I don't remember protests at that time. Yeah, No, that's
how the bowling thing. That's right.
Speaker 1 (01:29):
And you know that this speaker really has turned out
right to be very very good.
Speaker 4 (01:36):
President Trump's gonna had the greatest improvement to the White
House in the history of the building, is since since
it was originally constructed in eighteen hundred. The ballroom is
going to be glorious. It's going to be used for everybody.
And by the way, hey Democrats, if you win the
White House back, you get to use it too. This
is for the American people, and he's using private.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
Funds to do it. How in the world could they
oppose that.
Speaker 4 (01:58):
The only reason, the only logical reason, is because they
have Trump arrangement syndrome.
Speaker 1 (02:02):
And that's what explains a lot of this. Yeah, And
it's fun to watch, right because it helps it helps
defeat the left by exposing him as being naughty. You
wouldn't believe how many people out there still think the
Democratic Party is what it was twenty thirty forty years ago.
And I'm not saying it was great then, but as
a former Democrat, I can tell you you know, there
are so many people out there still believe that because
(02:23):
guess what, politics isn't a big priority for them. They
try not to pay any attention to it. And I'm
not being at all critical, but that's just how they
live their lives. And then they'll be good citizens and
show up on election day. But yeah, they have no
idea if this Democratic Party has become this whax. So
there's so much opportunity here. Three out three someone three
(02:45):
eight two five five The number text d an five
seven seven three nine. Looks like President Trump getting tough
with Putin again, which is great to see, right, really
great to see. And as a blessed are the peacemakers.
And no same person wants a World War three or
or a mass war in Ukraine. But let's face it,
you know, Putin is a rapist and murderer. He has
(03:07):
raped and pillaged Ukraine. He is evil, he is Satan
on earth, and he shouldn't be awarded with an inch
of territory. But because Europe decided it wouldn't put boots
on the ground and fight for Ukraine, Putin's going to
get territory. And the sooner Trump's able to end it
and save more lives, the better. That's what this all
boils down to. But Putin now being the devil, is
(03:29):
just being greedy. I mean, one inch is greedy, right,
But under these circumstances, yeah, Putin's being greedy. So Trump,
you know, is just now turning up the heat through
sanctions and looks like he's got a whole tomahawks right now.
But go he has authorized the use of some other long,
longer range type missiles that in fact Ukraine started using
yesterday to great effect. All right, now here's the biggie.
(03:52):
The biggie is US Supreme Court. Yesterday did something that
surprised a lot of people. It decided to take a
case that has a fiest implications for Colorado. Because the
Supreme Court is going to decide whether the federal government
can deprive habitual marijuana users of their Second Amendment right
(04:13):
to possess a firearm. That is the one narrow issue
before the US Supreme Court. And so want to get
your take on that. How do you want to see him?
Rule three h three someone three eight two five five
takes Dan five seven seven three nine. In the first hour,
I made everybody the smartest person in the room on
this case because I gave you facts that goes so
far by beyond the headlines, and they're such interesting facts.
(04:36):
But before I do that again quickly, I want to
get to some of our texters. Dan to Dan five
seven seven three nine. I can smell the pot smoke
from here. Legalization is obviously negative and negatively impacted most
of our country. There is no doubt about that, which
is why you see more states now not doing it. Dan,
I think there needs to be a clarification. Is a
(04:58):
person who has a martini every night or the person
who takes a couple of hits off a joint every
night a habitual user? I believe the term should be
an excessive habitual user. Texture You may be onto something there,
because the fact that US Supreme Court took this case
suggests to me at least that it is going to
(05:21):
uphold this law. But I think it will narrow it
in some ways. Will it narrow it in that way?
Will it narrow it in that way and say, wait
a second, it's not enough to be a regular user.
There has to be evidence that the person is regularly
impaired by it. Is that where the Supreme Court is
(05:43):
going to go with it? Is that where you think
they should go with it? And as an earlier Texter said, Ryan,
what do you think the left does with this? I
mean the left wants to strip us all of our guns?
So is Pollless, Bennett, Hicker lebar. Are they all going
to come out and say, yeah, Supreme Court, you should
strip habitual marijuana users of their Second Amendment rights. Do
(06:03):
you think we'll see him do that? Huh? Dan? Keyword
illegal use? Yes? And under federal law in Colorado right now,
marijuana sale is illegal and possession is illegal. So that's
why it's illegal use three or three seven to one,
three eight, two, five five the number? Dan, Nothing happened
(06:26):
to Hunter and he was using hard drugs and lied
on his back background check. Wait a second, I thought
he was convicted on those charges. It's been a while,
wasn't he convicted? He was convicted on it.
Speaker 5 (06:35):
He was chartened by his father though, right?
Speaker 1 (06:36):
Oh yeah, so pardon by the pen ye pardoned by the.
Speaker 3 (06:41):
Although that might have been the one part and that
Joe intentionally did and none of the others.
Speaker 1 (06:46):
Yeah, yeah, no, he may have done that one. Uh. Dan,
I'm all in favor of Scode is taking this case
on two a habitual marijuana users, and I agree the
two don't mix. I do this gets little complicated. My
question is what's the threshold used and how do the
courts prove? It makes no difference to me since I
don't use, but surely there has to be a threshold.
(07:08):
Fascinating question from our texter, and I do expect the
US Supreme Court in this decision to establish some kind
of threshold. But in the underlying case. In the underlying case,
the reason the Feds were able to bring the charge
was the defendant confess to being a regular marijuana user,
(07:30):
said he used every other day. So that's how they
got the habitual marijuana user. Now, they also found cocaine
in his place when the FBI rated this terrorist suspect's home,
but they didn't have any admission or other proof about
regular cocaine use. And he was a dealer too, so
they didn't know whether it was for sale, possession, et cetera.
(07:51):
So that's why this case is all about marijuana, because
that's the one thing they can prove is habitual marijuana user.
Let's go back to the phone lines, Ed in Kenyon City,
you're on the Day Capitalist Show.
Speaker 6 (08:04):
Yes, sir, well, I was kind of curious because you
were saying that they can put you in a category. Yes,
to determine whether you're who determines who puts you in
that category. They can't ask your doctor. That would be
a violation of hippa. What are they going to do?
Speaker 1 (08:21):
Ask you?
Speaker 6 (08:22):
You can exercise yourself the memory.
Speaker 7 (08:23):
And be quiet.
Speaker 8 (08:24):
So then who does the determination?
Speaker 1 (08:26):
Well? What a good question from Ed, because what this
goes to is, Okay, what can the legislators do because
they're the ones who put you in a category. Right,
we're talking about laws passed by legislatures, and that the
courts have said legislatures can decide that a certain category
of persons pose a special danger when in possession of firearms.
(08:49):
And a historical reference made by the Trump administration is
to alcoholics and going back to you know, the time
the Second Amendment was conceived and ratified, there were laws
limiting the ability of alcoholics. They call them drunkards in
the law at the time to possess firearms. So to
answer your question ed, and we've got to hit this hardbreak,
it's the legislature that gets to identify the category and
(09:13):
then the court gets to say whether that category has
been adequately supported by the facts, So whether that the
legislature had a sound basis to decide this whole category
of humans lose their Second Amendment rights because they present
a special danger when they possess those weapons. When we
(09:36):
come back, I'll tell you about some of the other
categories of folks cited by the Trump administration and their brief.
But the big question for you is, Hey, do you
agree that habitual marijuana users should lose their Second Amendment
rights in Colorado and other places? Because that's what the
Trump administration is arguing for, and the Supreme Court they
(09:57):
just took the case. You're on the Dan Kapli Show.
Speaker 5 (10:01):
And now back to the Dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 1 (10:04):
Glad you're here. Big issue now before the US Supreme Court,
they just took the case, and that is, should a
habitual marijuana user in Colorado lose their Second Amendment right?
Can the federal government forbid a habitual marijuana user from
possessing firearms three or three seven one three A two
(10:25):
five five the number text d An five seven seventy
three nine. Now, this Supreme Court decision, of course, will
affect people in every state. But since we have quote
legal marijuana on a state level still illegal on a
federal level, you know this is going to affect a
lot of Colorado. So what do you think? Do you
think a person should lose their Second Amendment right if
(10:46):
they're a habitual marijuana user. So what I've been doing
in this show is deep diving the case, including the
factual background, the underlying defendant who was a terrorism suspect,
and that's really fascinating stuff, so you can pick it
up off the podcast. We're going to focus now on
what do you think is the Trump administration right to
(11:07):
be pursuing this case and trying to take away those
Second Amendment rights? Three or three seveone three eight two
five five text d An five seven seven three nine.
Let's go to Justin in Littleton. You're on the dan
KAPLA shall welcome Justin.
Speaker 7 (11:23):
Hi dam an interesting topic. I think I heard you
say you have owned a firearm. You know what a
forty four to seventy three form is the one when
you buy it, you got to fill it out.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
Oh, I must have filled out a bunch of them
because I have a bunch of guns.
Speaker 7 (11:37):
Yeah, same brother, you should look at that again. I'm
looking at it now. It says a bunch of different things.
So I guess I'm confused on why the possession versus
the buying of the firearm. Like we have to be
legal citizen or residence. You can't be adjudicated mentally defective.
Let's see what else it is. You can't have domestic violence, felonies,
(12:00):
drug possession which includes marijuana or alcohol. I think it
also says in the forum, and you actually should pull
this form up and look at it. I just fall
on recently, so I'm kind of better acquainted with it.
But why are we going to the possession things of
the purchase, because it's already illegal purchase to come with
all those limitations in a couple more than.
Speaker 1 (12:19):
Mentioned right, Because in this case, and in the case
of I think most arrest scenarios, it's going to be
the possession. It's going to be the possession that they
can prove automatically. Now, maybe they go ahead. And I
don't know why they'd want to prosecute the purchase when
it's in the same section as the possession, And I
(12:41):
don't believe they'd be allowed to double charge that. So
is there something that concerns you, my friend, with it
being charged on the basis of the possession?
Speaker 7 (12:51):
Well, I think it. You know your parlance tipso facto
already is a legal and it says user of marijuana
on it. So I guess that means if you use
it once, it says user or like addicted. So it says,
you know, what if you smoke and I don't do this.
Maybe I have in the past, but certainly not for
a long time. What if you smoke one joint a year, Yeah,
(13:12):
you're still a user?
Speaker 1 (13:13):
Right?
Speaker 9 (13:14):
No?
Speaker 7 (13:14):
And what if you had a gun at the house
at the same time?
Speaker 1 (13:16):
Well, what a great question. And as we were talking
about earlier, No, what the administration is arguing is that
the end they're arguing correctly on this point is that
the courts over time have narrowed the definition. So what
USC nine to twenty two G three says is that
possession of a firearm is prohibited by a person who
(13:37):
is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance. Now,
what the courts have done is narrow that term, the
definition of that term unlawful user to habitual user. So
somebody who just uses it once is not going to
be subject to having their two way rights taken away.
(13:58):
You have to be able to prove under this federal
law somebody is a regular user. That's where the special
danger is created. That's the argument.
Speaker 7 (14:09):
Well, I guess all the question will be. Let's say
you have ten guns at home, you go to Amsterdam,
you know, get blasted for a week and come back,
or you in possession of that weapon if it was
in your house even though you weren't in physical proximity
to it.
Speaker 1 (14:21):
No, in that charge A great question, my friend, and
thank you lines of gen want to get everybody in
that charge is never going to stick because, okay, you
went to Amsterdam. I don't know why you do that
if you want to do dope, because Colorado's laws are
more liberal. But anyway, yeah, it was a one time thing.
It was a blitz. Right Whereas to be convicted under
(14:44):
this law, to be deprived of your two A rates
under this law, you have to be a regular, habitual user.
And again it comes back to the claimed justification, the
rationale for the law, which is the danger the special
danger post. And then the administration argues in great details,
citing many medical authorities as to the special dangers posed
(15:08):
by possession of a firearm by an habitual, regular marijuana user,
and they argue in the brief to the Supreme Court
altered perception of time, decrease, short term memory, impaired perception,
and motor skills with extreme use, panic attacks, paranoid thought,
so hallucinations. And then the administration comes back to this
argument repeatedly that there's increased danger to law enforcement from
(15:33):
habitual drug users possessing weapons. Eric and Castle Rock here
on the Dan Kapitli Show, we may have to finish
on the other side.
Speaker 10 (15:40):
Fire away, Dan bil Quick, Yeah, I agree with the case,
and I think that if the state will not allow
me to conceal carry my weapon because I'm under any
amount of influence of alcohology, I'd be no different from
marijuana number two if I'm an habitual alcoholic. I also
agree that they should not have the same rights either,
(16:01):
So I do agree with this game.
Speaker 1 (16:03):
Eric appreciate the call. And it's interesting the Trump administration
bases a lot of its argument to the Supreme Court
regarding marijuana, bases it on alcohol and again makes the
point that historically, since the Second Amendment was ratified, at
the time the Second Amendment was conceived of that it
was routine to bar what they called quote drunkards alcoholics
(16:26):
from possessing firearms. And so what the administration's arguing is
this is the modern equivalent. Yeah, three out three eight
seven one three eight two five five text DN five
seven seven three nine. Hey, I don't want to pop
anybody on right now. That'd be unfair to them, because
we're about to break and we're going to have a
two way special guest on the other side as well,
get her take on this, and then we'll come back
(16:49):
and we'll continue this deep dive. I think it's one
of the most interesting issues in a long long time.
And again, as a Texter said, are we going to
see Polis and others on the left come out now
and argue in favor of this because it would mean
depriving more people of two A rights. Ryan's speaking of which,
and believe me, listen, I understand Polish ideologically horrible for
(17:10):
this state, extremely arrogant, you know, all those things. But
have you seen the latest picture of them, Ryan, of
whom polish which one another one in the post today?
Speaker 5 (17:23):
What does it look like?
Speaker 1 (17:24):
He looks really good? Oh?
Speaker 5 (17:26):
Was that empic?
Speaker 1 (17:27):
I don't know what. I'm not saying that. All I'm
saying is he looks really good, Okay, And I mean
he's still just as bad for the state, right, sure,
I'm just saying he looks really good. How do you
think he got a stylist or something. Yeah, No, it's fascinating,
just you know, really, I don't know how to describe it,
(17:49):
but yeah, he's looking really good in that picture. Doesn't
change the fact he's horrible for us as a people
in the state. But just want to be there, not
that it matters. Three or three someone three A two
five five takes dam five seven seven three nine when
we come back. Yeah, we'll talk to A two A
(18:10):
expert about this as well. And what do you think
should somebody lose their Second Amendment rights because they're habitual
marijuana user. You're on the Dan Kapla Show.
Speaker 5 (18:22):
You're listening to the Dan Kapliss Show podcast.
Speaker 1 (18:25):
You're here one of the more interesting cases in a
very long time to hit the US Supreme Court? Should
you lose your Second Amendment rights if you're an habitual
marijuana user? So I've been deep diving it throughout the
show and you can pick it up off the podcast
and get into some facts you're not going to hear
anywhere else about this case. It is really remarkable how
(18:47):
it even came to be. But Alicia Garcia is kind
enough to join us from the Second Syndicate to get
her take on this. Alicia, Welcome to the Dan Caplis Show.
Speaker 9 (18:58):
Hi Dan, how are you? And Anthal?
Speaker 1 (19:00):
Yeah, by the way, Oh forgive me, sorry for that really,
but let me ask you how do you feel about this?
How do you how do you feel about the Trump
administration going to the Supreme Court and saying habitual marijuana
users should lose their Second Amendment right to possess a firearm?
Speaker 9 (19:16):
I do not agree with it. As a matter of fact.
I think it's fogus.
Speaker 5 (19:19):
And this is.
Speaker 9 (19:20):
Another reason as to why we have to get away
from this. You know, giving status to political figures is godlike.
There's you know, there's this misconception that just because I'm
a Second Amendment supporter that I am this right winged extremist.
I am, you know, diehard maga. I'm you know, win
(19:41):
or lose, we still vote republican kind of an ideology.
And we have to get away from this narrative because
you should, we should exercise discernment and as people, if
you have the right to go out, have some drinks
with your friends, you know, have a good time, wake
up the next day, get up, go to work, you
should still you should also have a right to exercise
(20:03):
a right to consume cannabis. And I'm very well versed
in the cannabis industry because one of my very close
and dear friends of over twenty years is a huge
cannabis person. He actually runs a couple of cannabis businesses,
so I know a lot about about it. And to me,
it seems like, you know, we're demonizing something that shouldn't
(20:23):
be demonized and if it's if it's okay on the
state level, it should be okanna federal levels.
Speaker 1 (20:28):
Alicia Garcia, our guest from the second syndicate, Is there
any point at which, and I expect the Supreme Court
will be having this debate in the open, is there
any point at which regular alcohol consumption or regular marijuana
consumption should just should deprive somebody of their Second Amendment.
Speaker 9 (20:47):
Right, I don't believe so. I don't believe so. And
the reason that I feel that way is because, you know,
when we're asking people if it's something they can function on,
I mean not with sounding crafts about it. People aren't
in the alley ways, losing their homes and their mortgages,
performing you know, egregious acts for a hit of cannabis.
(21:10):
You know, I mean, it's not like their teeth are
running out of their face, they're stealing, their selling their bodies.
They're doing these things because of a drug. That's not
the way cannabis works. And as a matter of fact,
it has confounding information that shows that cannabis is actually beneficial.
And I mean, to be real, anything in moderation should
be fine. Any excess of anything should be bad.
Speaker 6 (21:32):
Right.
Speaker 9 (21:33):
If you're a chronic alcoholic, that's that's awful. Right, If
you can't function and do anything worldwide because you are,
you know, consuming cannabis, that's another issue. However, I'm not
seeing and feel free people. If you want to reach
out to me and talk to me about it, I
love open debate, because that is how we change things, right,
(21:53):
We have to have open discussions. But I don't see
people losing their livelihoods over cannabis. A lot of it,
you know, unable to do those things.
Speaker 1 (22:02):
Yeah, I see a lot of it. I see a
lot of dead bodies from legalized marijuana in my work
doing catastrophic injury and death where people are killed on
the highways by high drivers and things like that. So, Alicia,
if we were having this separate debate over, you know,
should we have legalized marijuana in Colorado, I'd say it's
been one of the biggest disasters in state history. When
(22:24):
we're talking about, hey, should somebody lose their Second Amendment
right because they're a regular user of marijuana? You know,
That's where I think we get into some different issues
more particular to that defendant that I think we'll see
the US Supreme Court address, such as, wait a second, Okay,
this particular regular user of marijuana, you know, does it
(22:48):
affect them in a certain way. It'll be interesting to
see if the Supreme Court goes there. But Alicia, I'd
love to get your reaction to this, because the Trump
administration is arguing, hey, since the time the Second Amendment
was ratified. You know, there have been laws all over
the country restricting the ability of alcoholics as a category,
not individual alcoholics, but as a category to possess firearms.
(23:13):
So how would you react to that argument to the
court that if somebody is an alcoholic, they can be
deprived of their two way right.
Speaker 9 (23:23):
Well, I would like to see cases where they are,
because here's the truth you were talking about. I agree
with you in the sense that you shouldn't be under
any influence of anything that's going to be controlling someone's life,
like driving a car as a privilege right, we get
a driver's license to exercise a privilege. If you are
(23:44):
under the influence of something that's intoxicating you to the
point that you can't function, that that's a privilege. However,
the right to self defense and the right to defend
yourself with firearms is not a privilege. It is a
constitutional on human rights. Talking about exercising and putting restrictions
on a constitutional right, that's different. That doesn't impact you
(24:06):
the way it should if you are, you know, losing
the right to drive a vehicle. Now, I think we
as a society should not be doing things that jeopardize
the public health of people if you are a drunk.
That's why they have UBER, That's why they have you know,
these car services. You shouldn't be operating a motor vehicle
on the under the influence. However, do I think it
(24:29):
hinders somebody or should hinder somebody from being able to
protect and defend themselves.
Speaker 1 (24:33):
I don't believe so. See, you are one thousand percent
right about the fact that two A is a right. Right,
It's a fundamental right, whereas a driver's license is not.
And so as the Trump administration argues to the Supreme Court,
you know, you should have to show an awful lot
to a court before you're allowed to infringe on that
(24:54):
two way right. And that's just where the Trump administration
comes back to, Hey, regular marijuana, you increases dangers in
all these different areas. So it'll be interesting to see
where the court comes down on that. I don't think
they would have taken this case unless they intended to
uphold the restriction to some extent. But how far they
go with it, I guess we'll find out together.
Speaker 8 (25:16):
Indeed, yeah, well we will.
Speaker 1 (25:18):
Hey really appreciate you popping on. Tell folks how they
can follow you.
Speaker 9 (25:23):
You can find me on our website at the Second
Syndicate dot com the Two Indie Syndicate dot com. We
are a grassroots Second Amendment organization that is here to
protect and defend and educate Colorado in their Second Amendment rights.
I also have a Concil Carry class if I teach
every weekend. It is Concil Carrey Class, Denver dot com.
If you would like to come and train with me,
I am one of only four women in the nation
(25:45):
that is certified for u seca's Defensive Pistol Program instructors.
So it is a very very high level defensive pistil capability.
So if you would like to step your game up,
if you would like to renew or obtain your confilled
HANDSOD permit, if you want to even brush upon your skills,
feel free to find me there as well. You can
find me on all my socials at Boomstick Babe, round
the Boomstick Babe. You'll find me anywhere.
Speaker 1 (26:06):
Alicia, thank you, appreciate the time.
Speaker 9 (26:09):
You have a great evening. Dan, thank you for your time.
Speaker 1 (26:11):
Thank you you take care and to this day, Ryan,
I don't know if anybody has seen anything more impressive
or as I would say hotter than that video of
my wife knocking down targets. Look out, really impressive. Don't
mess with any Mama bear three or three seven three
(26:31):
eight two five five text d A N five seven
seven three nine This one, this is really going to
get wild. And the US Supreme Court when they decided
to take the case, I think they were signaling they're
going to to some extent uphold this law. Eric in Denver,
you're on the dan kaplis. She'll welcome.
Speaker 8 (26:50):
Yeah, thank you for taking my call. First of all,
I am a veteran. Number two is that they made
these lulls legal for people to buy a pot here
in this state and stuff folks. And now you're going
to turn this around on law abiding people that are
(27:10):
maybe marijuana users in their own home and a promamcy
of their own home just having a firearm in their
house just protect themselves. And now you're going to turn
this against them that you made law illegal and you
want to not allow of people to have a fire room.
Speaker 1 (27:29):
Yeah, and first, thank you for your service, Eric. And yes,
the administration's arguing that there's a special danger posed by
people who are regular marijuana users and a special danger
to police as well in allowing such folks to have firearms.
So that's the argument to the Supreme Court. When you
talk about legal obviously, my friend is you know, it's
(27:51):
marijuana sale, possession, et cetera. Still illegal at the federal level,
but legal now at the state level.
Speaker 8 (27:58):
As you say, right, you know, well, a lot of
people don't know the difference and stuff. And again they're
to go to a pod shop and in their neighborhood
walking to buy it up.
Speaker 1 (28:10):
Yeah, no, you're you're right about that, my friend. Again,
thank you for your service. Now, real world, if the
US Supreme Court finds that this law is constitutional and
keywords constitutional as applied to the defendant in this case,
and when we come back for more calls and text,
I'll explain what that means. Though I think you've already
figured it out. I don't expect this to be widely enforced.
(28:36):
I think the federal government wants this on the books
so they can use it in particular cases like the
underlying case. Here was a case involving a terrorism suspect,
you know, who had been linked to the Iranian Revolutionary
Guard who had traveled to Iran to celebrate the life
of Solomony after the US had killed Solomoni. So I
(28:59):
think the wants it on the books just to be
able to prosecute it in certain cases, but the broader
principle would still apply to be sitting there in the law.
Do you think it should be? You're on the Dankpla Show.
Speaker 5 (29:12):
And now back to the Dankaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 1 (29:15):
Wow what a day. Wish you had a couple of
more hours talking about this huge US Supreme Court case
they just agreed to take it. I can a habitual
marijuana user have their to a right strip and it's
it's a big, big deal obviously for Colorado. So I've
done a deep dive throughout the show. You can pick
it off the podcast and we'll follow up on a tomorrow.
(29:35):
David Coppel, who's kind of the iconic two A expert,
is going to join us during tomorrow show to get
his take on the Trump administration argument to the US
Supreme Court that yes, this particular federal law should be upheld,
that it is constitutional USC nine two two G three.
(29:57):
So I will continue to talk about a great text
calls coming in Dan, what if the administration is doing
this hoping to lose and expanding the protections for to
a by doing so, I love our listeners. They just
think outside the box. That's a beautiful thing. I don't
believe that's the case here, because the underlying case involves
(30:20):
a major terrorism suspect who was rated by the FBI
because he was linked to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. And
when they conducted the raid, they found large amounts of
marijuana and cocaine and other drugs along with weapons, and
so they're using this charge habitual marijuana user to get
(30:44):
extra ten years in jail. So I think they want
to win. I think they want to have the tool
available for a relative handful of suspects in the future.
I don't think they have any intention of trying to
enforce it widespread, but hey, when the laws on the
books and if the constitutionality is upheld, you know, then
(31:07):
it might be enforced in a broader way. Great question though,
Thank you for that, my friend. I do think they
want to win on this, and I've read their underlying
brief into the US Supreme Court. It is superbly done,
and it's really deeply rooted in history and in medicine.
You've got the administration and they document it with their
sources in their brief to the US Supreme Court asking
(31:29):
the court to take this case on, you know, documenting
medically the effect that regular because it has to be
regular marijuana use, right, the effect that regular marijuana use
has on most people, and therefore how it puts them
in a more dangerous class, argues the administration. When it
comes to possessing firearms. They document, you know, altered perception
(31:53):
of time, decrease short term memory, impaired perception and motor skills,
panic attacks with heavier use, paranoid thoughts, hallucinations, and they
document all of this, so they seem very serious about
it in their briefing, Dan, what about a person who's
prescribed and a regular user of powerful narcotics. Shouldn't they
be allowed their two ay rights to defend themselves in
(32:14):
their own home. And again this comes back to the
argument of the administration that that wait a second, this
habitual use, this habitual use of these controlled substances makes
a person more dangerous when it comes to possession of firearms. Again,
you get back to the question of how broadly they
(32:36):
intend to enforce it. But that's their argument in support
of the law. Then we get a texture on Hey, Dan,
did you hear that the Denver post owner has passed
you on office RNT a couple of months and cities
now fighting to get their money, etc. Yeah, and we're
going to cover that in some more depth. Thank you
Texter for that.
Speaker 10 (32:55):
Dan.
Speaker 1 (32:55):
It sounded with that guest like you were saying two
way guest. No, I was saying too a guest, But
thank you testing about pointing that out right? Yes? Two
a second amendment? Right? They had two things. What about
the mushroom users that are state wisely legalized? Are they
going to let government do continual drug testing unregistered gun owners?
(33:16):
A couple of great questions when you talk about this
goofiness of legalizing psilocybin use. Yeah, same thing under this
federal law under USC nine to twenty two G three,
if you are a regular user of a controlled substance,
you cannot legally possess a firearm under this particular federal law.
(33:40):
It doesn't matter what the substance is. The reason the
US Supreme Court case involves marijuana is because of two things.
They found marijuana when they rated this terrorism suspects home,
and he admitted to regular use. That's the key. They
found a lot of cocaine, but he didn't admit to
regular use, and he was a drug dealer, so they
couldn't be sure. But he admitted to regular marijuana use,
(34:03):
which is an essential element of this offense. We have
some great textures Dan's moronic argument to conflate alcohol and marijuana.
Thank you Texter for using my word though he didn't
use trademark. There, s'mron, I've labeled a smart person saying
a moronic thing, but thank you for using my word there,
(34:28):
Dan is Mara wanna there are some typos there. Listen,
this topic is so hot and it's so important. We're
going to continue to deep dive tomorrow. Thank you Ryan
for your great work. David Koppo will join us on
this tomorrow. Have a wonderful, safe evening. Catch you tomorrow
and for on the Dan Kapla Show
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.