I don't think you realize you're moving the goal-posts on this one...

SOCIALLY, it's not okay to drink and shoot. Agreed.
Is there any legal justification for removing gun purchasing rights based on a suspicion of drinking?

Again, NO CONVICTION.
Here, we don't even know the circumstances involved.
If there was a conviction of a felony, then that's an existing standard that could be applied.


I think you're missing the point.
In order to justify removing a 2nd amendment right, YES.
A conviction is required.

On another note, this thread is positively amusing and bizarre regarding role reversals.
How many people have whined that the "terrorist watch list" involves no conviction and people are denied a right...
But here, no conviction and 2nd amendment right to buy a gun is removed? That's okay!


Like I said earlier.
The 2nd amendment enthusiasts who are blindly jumping on with the "screw the marijuana users" band-wagon are not appreciating the precedent being set.
This court case could establish a loose justification for denying gun ownership on OTHER suspected (but no conviction) illegal activities which aren't felonies which have an allegation (but no actual evidence) of increased risk ...


For all those who think it's okay to bring a gun into a bar where alcohol is served, HOW can that survive if this precedent is established?
It's an easy next step from "risk of marijuana => no gun" to inhibiting liquor licenses if the alcohol serving establishment allows guns on the premises...

__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln