That is not the case. Cannabis would still be a federally illegal drug (controlled substances act) and thereby users are prohibitited from owning firearms. This includes all Schedule 1-5 drugs.

see:

21 U.S.C. § 802

and

18 U.S.C. § 922(g)

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Under schedule 3, legal prescriptions would not be considered unlawful use.

Besides, I've learned since writing my previous comment that the SCOTUS has invalidated laws prohibiting gun ownership based on previous drug use. So I was wrong from the jump, but for different reasons.

[–] higgsboson@dubvee.org 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Under schedule 3, legal prescriptions would not be considered unlawful use.

Prescriptions are a tiny fraction of cannabis use, but that would still be a major positive change.

I've learned since writing my previous comment that the SCOTUS has invalidated laws prohibiting gun ownership based on previous drug use.

... citation needed. U.S. v. Daniels was the 5th Circuit (and not applicable to most of the country,) it was not SCOTUS. After Bruen, many consider such likely to be struck down if it reaches SCOTUS, but that has not happened (nor has it even been granted cert, afaik.)

What SCOTUS did hear this term was US v Rahimi, which deals with an adjacent topic, but the prohibited person in that case was subject to a domestic restraining order.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Thank you for taking the time to explain this to me, especially citing the statutes. I only know it's been a big deal in Pennsylvania, with the conservatives threatening to go after the guns of people who get prescription cards. It's prescription only here.