Before we start we think this report is also relevant from public radio Tulsa published 10 April 2019
The Oklahoma Supreme Court is going to need a new justice.
With Republicans fast-tracking President Trump’s judicial nominees, 38-year-old Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice Patrick Wyrick has been confirmed for the U.S District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.
The Senate confirmed his nomination along party lines 53–47 late Tuesday, with new rules strictly limiting time for debate over judicial nominees.
Wyrick has been mentioned as a potential U.S. Supreme Court pick for President Trump.
Feb 4 (Reuters) – A federal law prohibiting marijuana users from possessing firearms is unconstitutional, a federal judge in Oklahoma has concluded, citing last year’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling that significantly expanded gun rights.
ABC news provides more detail
OKLAHOMA CITY — A federal judge in Oklahoma has ruled that a federal law prohibiting people who use marijuana from owning firearms is unconstitutional, the latest challenge to firearms regulations after the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority set new standards for reviewing the nation’s gun laws.
Lawyers for Jared Michael Harrison had argued that their client’s Second Amendment right to bear arms was being violated by a federal law that makes it illegal for “unlawful users or addicts of controlled substances” to possess firearms.
Harrison had been charged after being arrested by police in Lawton, Oklahoma, in May 2022 following a traffic stop. During a search of his car, police found a loaded revolver as well as marijuana. Harrison told police he had been on his way to work at a medical marijuana dispensary, but that he did not have a state-issued medical-marijuana card.
His lawyers had argued the portion of federal firearms law focused on drug users or addicts was not consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, echoing what the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled last year in a case known as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. That case set new standards for interpreting the Second Amendment.
Federal prosecutors had argued that the portion of the law focused on drug users is “consistent with a longstanding historical tradition in America of disarming presumptively risky persons, namely, felons, the mentally ill, and the intoxicated.”
Read more at