US Supreme Court drug users cannot be prohibited from firearms [pdf]

yeah, the consequences are that the law in question gets overturned.

you're not arguing for enforcing existing consequences, you're trying to make up a whole new set of consequences.

people get extremely emotional about the topic of firearms, so let's take what you're saying and apply it to a different context, and hopefully you can understand how ludicrous it is.

FDR signed an executive order [0] for internment of American citizens of Japanese ancestry. it was challenged in a case that went to the Supreme Court [1].

SCOTUS upheld that executive order as constitutional. but let's imagine it had gone the other way, and been struck down as unconstitutional.

with the "consequences" you're proposing, a decision striking down EO 9066 would also imply President FDR must go to jail, wouldn't it? after all, he violated the Constitution. that is an insane outcome - a 5-4 SCOTUS vote could send a President to jail?

the Constitution clearly lays out methods of punishing elected officials - impeachment and possible removal by Congress. in your zeal to defend one tiny sentence of the Constitution, you're inventing out of whole cloth a completely separate way of punishing elected officials, one which would itself be unconstitutional.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States

Do I think the government needs internal counterforce? Absolutely and there are plenty of countries today to see why.

Do I think it’s great that every nutjob has a gun? Well no, I don’t.

I am not saying that the amendment is great, but I don’t believe the absolute right to bear arms was intended. That said, it could very well be that the authors did not see it coming that _anyone_ could have a gun, because that was most probably not the case back then. And perhaps here today’s liberal thinking hits the historic context.

Last but not least, one interpretation of “regulated” is this. I am not saying it is what was intended, but lots of people argue that:

"Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight."

Also, the absolute right is the _precursor_ anyway, it is given such that militia can be formed, and the way the militia is organized is not a condition to the right. But admittedly, it is not clear to contemporary reader what they meant.

Judges being able to throw people from other branches in jail would cause all kinds of other problems.

duly elected or not, a government that persues an undue course of action is in need of regulation. the proximal context, a militia occupying cities to enforce the taking of taxes, liberties, and autonomy is a militia requiring regulation.

that regulation manifests as a resistance to application of force that is bane rather than boon to the social order.

that requires the bearing of arms that place the regulating faction [plebe] on equal terms with the offending militia.

a responsible person should realize they violate more than they vindicate by getting HAF and taking potshots at hallucination delusions and illusions.

bare minimum, put the guns away, for boilerplate in a timelocked safe, until you are on level cognition again.

removing someones right to effective self defense, permanently in complement to a temporary condition is disingenuous considering alcohol use is somehow not a permanently disqualifying condition vs "drug" use being ineffable impairment.