New details emerge on how 6-year-old boy who shot Virginia teacher got mom's gun

MSG Thomas Currie -
I see the appeals court being overturned eventually. There is a reason people on drugs should be kept away from firearms just as people on alcohol should. It alters your mental state and your decision making is impaired.

MSG (Join to see) - People who are drunk or high certainly should not be handling firearms, but the notion of a lifetime ban is problematic, both legally and morally. Would you equally support a lifetime ban on possessing a firearm for everyone who has ever drank alcohol? I think we would instantly lose the vast majority of our military under such a ban.

MSG Thomas Currie -
That's not what it says and that isn't the case that the judges struck down. It says "addicted to narcotics or any other controlled substance".
This tends to mean current unless it runs afoul of the other rule which is a crime punishable by imprisonment for over a year (felony).
In the case before the judges, the person admitted to being a current regular user of marijuana and was in possession of 2 firearms. In Hunter Bidens case, he was using hard drugs and purchased a firearm. In the case involving the woman in the post, she was using drugs and it was a factor in her child getting the firearm.

Federally Prohibited Persons (including marijuana users)
18 USC 922 (g) – Federally Prohibited Persons

The Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Federal Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 make it illegal for a person who fits into any of the following categories to ship, transport, receive or possess firearms or ammunition. These laws prevent a state from issuing a concealed carry license/permit as it would be illegal for people who fit in these categories, by federal law, to own or possess a gun.

Persons who have been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year
Fugitives from justice
Persons who are unlawful users of or are addicted to narcotics or any other controlled substances (including medical marijuana, see below)
Persons adjudicated as a mental defective or who have been committed to a mental institution (although relief may be available under the 2008 NICS Improvement Act)
Aliens illegally in the U.S.
Military veterans discharged under dishonorable conditions
Persons who have renounced U.S. citizenship
Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence
Persons subject to a court order that restrains them from harassing, stalking or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, with limited exceptions, provided the court order:
was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and
includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury.

MSG (Join to see) - The law says "unlawful users of or are addicted" but the implementation in the Code of Federal Regulations and our judicial system is effectively Has Ever Used.

If you look at the appeals court decision, it made a clear distinction between a person under the influence of a drug vs a person who had used a drug.

Of course, most (if not all) of the 1968 Gun Control Act cannot stand up the the standard articulated by the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen.