In this case, Mr. Posey was arrested [The amount of marijuana in his and his friend's possession was less than 1/2 ounce.] in his own home. When asked, after his arrest, if he had any weapons, he told the officers there was a pistol in the back room. From his record, it appears Mr. Posey is an addict. Thus, he was sentenced to four years in the penitentiary, probated, however, on the condition that he serve six-months in the Jefferson County Jail with work release and otherwise comply with other conditions established by the court to keep him clean from drugs and law abiding. Background information indicated he had served his country well in the military, receiving an honorable discharge. He was a high school graduate and had had steady employment throughout the years. Yet, because he had a weapon in his house - though in another room - he was charged with another felony crime.
The state ruling cited here is an interesting discussion of the right to keep and bear arms. The ruling makes an exception for convicted felons, which the dissent (who makes his pro-gun beliefs well known) opposes as too broad. And, he has a point given the term "felony" these days amounts to any number of non-violent crimes often of a trivial nature, putting aside your views on its use when marijuana is involved.
Also, the ruling references Supreme Court precedent that makes it harder to enter a home without a warrant, even to prevent the destruction of evidence ... but criminal activity would often make a difference, esp. felonies.* Felonies also can lead to loss of voting rights, right to own a gun, obtain a license to various occupations, etc. Perils of the drug war, overcriminalized, and so forth.
As Justice White once noted, in reference to discussion of an Indian Rights law:
She complained that "[t]he people get governors and sometimes they get power hungry and then the people have no rights at all," to which Senator Ervin responded: " 'Power hungry' is a pretty good shorthand statement to show why the people of the United States drew up a Constitution. They wanted to compel their rulers to stay within the bounds of that Constitution and not let that hunger for power carry them outside it."
State or federal Constitution, that is.
---
* The original rule, and the defendant tried to rely on it, suggested that felonies would be required before warrantless invasions of the home would be allowed in most cases. But, a later case weakened the rule, and now ever misdemeanor drug offenses might be enough. Cf. Justice Stevens' comments here.