No Guns for Pot Heads
Apparently, some of you out there can no longer be trusted to purchase things that go bangy bangy because you are all smoked up on the Wacky Weed.
Court Rules That Medical Marijuana Card Holders Can’t Buy Firearms
If you have a medical marijuana card, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals says that you can’t buy a gun.
The court ruled 3-0 on Wednesday that a ban preventing medical marijuana card holders from purchasing firearms is not in violation of the Second Amendment, the Associated Press reports. There are nine western states under the appeals court’s jurisdiction, including Nevada, where the case originated.
A lawsuit was filed in 2011 by Nevada resident S. Rowan Wilson after she tried to purchase a gun for self-defense and was denied based on a federal ban on the sale of guns to users of illegal drugs. Though marijuana has been legalized in some places on a state-by-state basis, it remains illegal under federal law. The court maintained that drug use “raises the risk of irrational or unpredictable behavior with which gun use should not be associated.”
Chaz Rainey, the attorney representing Wilson, said that he plans to appeal the decision. “We live in a world where having a medical marijuana card is enough to say you don’t get a gun, but if you’re on the no fly list your constitutional right is still protected,” he told the AP. He argued that there should be more consistency in how the Second Amendment is applied.
Alex Kreit, marijuana law expert at the San Diego’s Thomas Jefferson School of Law, expects that this ruling won’t be the last we see of the issue. He told the AP that the ruling may be challenged by people who use medical marijuana who will argue “that they shouldn’t be lumped with other drug users in terms of concerns about violence.”
Category: Pointless blather, Veteran Health Care
I think you would be too mellow to go out and kill anyone if you were all blazed on Whacy Bacy??
If the FedGov is going to stop you from being allowed to legally buy a gun while on medical MJ, why won’t that same FedGov stop you from buying a gun when you use alcohol?
Yes the argument is ridiculous.
Mostly because they don’t regulate the sale of Alcohol, with a “license to buy” approved by your doctor. So they can’t single you out.
While I may not agree with the feds on this one, I do understand their logic behind it. Marijuana is still illegal at the Federal level, and the 4473 is a federal document- therefore,federal laws apply. That having been said, I still say they should decriminalize marijuana at the Federal level, but I don’t expect that to happen in my lifetime.
Yes, it is ridiculous, but common sense makes one wonder how comforting it is to a family dealing with the loss of someone to gun violence (or any other kind) to discover that the wacked out killer was high on alcohol, or even prescription psychotropic drugs, instead of mj or another illegally obtained drug. They simply would not be. At all.
This whole mess is ridiculous.
I am kind of in the ballpark of doing the same thing for everyone on psychotropic drugs and long term heavy pain med users.
Practically all of the school shooters and nearly all of the more notable mass shooters were on something (or had just gotten off of something when they left the rails). Practically all of them purchased their firearms legally OTC.
Sure they can still get a gun. I say make it a challenge.
How are the Vietnam vets going to “shotgun” a hit now?
That’s funny!
Dave,
I think what the author was trying to say was, you can still go down to your gun store and purchase a legal firearm when on the “No Fly List” because that is only distributed to airlines. But if you are a certified card carrying “Space Ranger” using the wacky weed for stress relief or glaucoma you can’t because they have now tied it to something else. I stopped smoking the stuff before I came I the military so I don’t see an issue here. But then I see no issue with getting a license to carry concealed.
Is the 9th Circuit ever right about anything? As I understand it, Trump is looking into reordering that cauldron of un-American misanthropes.
As to cannabis, it seems to me that the matter ought to be decided at the state level and local level.
The last time I smoked was around 1989. It was very potent, made me way too high and I do not intend to ever feel that way again:-)
Being able to purchase government marijuana does not meet a standard sufficient to prohibit the acquisition and ownership of a firearm, albeit, if someone is being treated for glaucoma then maybe it will improve their aim!
Tallywhagger, I stopped in the early 80’s cuz the last one was laced with something potent (unknown to me) and it scared the devil out of me.
Boubon has been the staple since then…..
In point of fact, the 9th Circuit is overruled on appeal more than all the other circuit courts combined. They are rarely right about anything, or even on point about law on anything. Hende the nickname “9th Circus”.
That actually is not true. I think at last count they were 3rd highest by percentage.
But yes that court is an embarrassment. I was seriously disappointed when the previous Chief Judge of that court, a born and raised Montanan, cast the deciding vote against Peruta. But maybe now when Kavanaugh is confirmed SCOTUS will sack up and actually hear that appeal.
According to the VA a great number of TBI patients use Cannabis.
Also .. this appears to be a 2 year old news piece ..
Further .. the 9th ruling only applies to the 9 western states, so this does not apply to the US in general.
As Jonn used to say when someone complained that he was posting old news, “Well, it’s new to me.” I was unaware of it and it appears others were, too. The issue remains current but now affects more dopers inasmuch as at least 30 states now legalize marijuana in some form or fashion.
As for the application of the ruling, it is persuasive in all states and the issue is quite cut and dry. An illegal user of drugs may not own a firearm and marijuana is illegal under Federal law. Of course, one’s spouse may own a firearm and not be in conflict with the law. The presumption is that if one has a card, he is a user. Not a stretch but still rebuttable.
I should have written, “As for the application of the ruling, it is controlling in nine states and persuasive in all others.”
So in some states you can legally purchase something that’s illegal making it illegal to make a legal purchase of something else.
Nailed it.
Or as Martha Coakley says “it’s not illegal to be illegal in Massachusetts”
I have three unopened bottles of wine in my fridge, plus one half-used bottle of Vina Duerte, not to mention the stuff in the pantry waiting for my attention.
So owning that stuff doesn’t bar me from obtaining firearms at will, right? Even with a hangover from Vina Fuerte and cheese and crackers? Oh, wait… Never mind.
Correct. Alcohol is not illegal; however, if you are saying that you are a habitual drunkard then, Houston, we have a problem.
You’re supposed to drink two glasses of red wine each day to unclog your arteries.
One small glass is enough for me and only with foodstuffs.
Denial, eh? I understand. One thing. The two glasses are not supposed to be for breakfast.
Well, but think of the vitamins and minerals included!!!
Why not ban pressure cookers as well?
All sharp objects, including but not limited to a potato peeler.
All plastic bags with no holes in them.
Tide pods, cinnamon, rubbing alcohol, wasabi powder – for all the millenial challenges.
Ice water for the challenges made by baby boomers.
I suppose next, you’ll be banning cracked black pepper, Himalayan pink salt, and dried dill weed, never mind baking soda and biscuit mixes.
Pink salt is simply wrong…just say no.
Stupid.
I was under the impression that medical marijuana had the Zing removed from it so one wouldn’t get a buzz and the remaining stuff that was beneficial to ones health remained in the marijuana. Anyone help me out on this.
Some strains do, others do not.
Medical dope is abused.
To me there are really two very significant issues here: First of all, Heller has stated that owning and possessing a firearm is a fundamental, individual Constitutional right. That is beyond dispute. Those who are worried about the administrative state trampling all over the Constitutional rights of citizens ought to be concerned about this because what the 9th circuit is saying is that in essence, you can be stripped of a fundamental Constitutional right with no due process, simply because you purchased (or were authorized to purchase) something that is legal under state law but illegal under Federal law. If they can strip you of this right without due process, what other rights can they strip from you without due process? And that takes me to the second issue: What is the point of Federalism if states are not allowed to make their own laws regarding what happens within that state? Is the state not sovereign? Does the state not have the right to decide what its laws will be? Did the 10th Amendment just disappear into a puff of smoke? And yes, I understand the Commerce Clause gives Congress the authority to regulate almost anything that moves in “interstate commerce” (which includes both firearms and drugs) but I see the various state laws legalizing pot as a kind of legislative civil disobedience. The Feds need to be careful here – right now people respect Federal court rulings because those rulings are usually well reasoned and conform to general expectations of the law. But I could envision a situation where, say, a Federal court holds that a State law legalizing marijuana is invalid, and the State subsequently tells the Feds to go pound sand and that they’re going to keep allowing the sale of MJ within their borders, as is their sovereign right under the Constitution. What then? Is the Federal government prepared to send in battalions of US Marshals or Army units to enforce Federal MJ law? Are they going to square off against the State’s National Guard over this issue? That would seem to be a spectacularly bad… Read more »
Dude, for all intents and purposes, the State sovereignty bit pretty much died in 1865.
^this^ Took 4 years, close to a million lives and a lot of treasury, but yeah Feds won that one. De Vindice. Personally, think that eventually weed will be legalized at all levels and taxed. Once the other states saw what Colorado was racking in on the taxes, that opened the gates.
State sovereignty actually explains the issue, USMC Steve. It is b/c of state sovereignty that the conflict of laws exists. More specifically, the Feds and the states are dual sovereigns. As dual citizens of the US and the state where we reside, we are potentially answerable to both, w/o risk of double jeopardy in a criminal matter. In this instance, the laws are in conflict and go to a Constitutional right. It’s really fascinating stuff. Another example of this duality at work, which produces conflict across the country is voting rights. The states control who may cast a vote. Here a felon may vote. There a felon may not vote. Hell, in one place in CA, non-citizens may vote for school board members! So, state sovereignty, while seriously eroded, still exists and the ugly truth is that most states are bought off by the Feds in order to receive Federal tax money.
You are getting as bad as that Hobo guy with all your facts and logic and stuff.
Never confuse people with evidence when they have already made up their minds.
You just make me moist.
In order to buy a gun you must (presumably truthfully) fill out Form 4473. It specifically states that whether pot is legal, on a Federal level pot is still illegal and a disqualifier. Seems to me the old 4473 also mentioned being an alcoholic, but the new form doesn’t mention it. Doesn’t matter to me, walk onto a range I am on high from either, I will have you thrown off.
In Washington State, there is a constant issue in first responder hiring with so many people having legally used MJ.
The Ninth Circus will jump on anything to prevent the ownership of firearms.
If a State passed a law saying that medical marijuana users were not allowed to have a driver’s license the Court would shoot it down in a heartbeat.
In reality you are probably 10,000 times more likely to be hurt or killed by a driver who is high than being shot by one.
The same with people hurting thermselves.
What if we don’t inhale?
So someone can now be barred from purchasing a gun for being prescribed narcotics other mood/mind altering drugs?
Not a good path to go down. Medical decisions should be between you and your doctor, not involving the state until you’re a danger to yourself or someone else. Just having a prescription for something shouldn’t disqualify someone from a fundamental Constitutional right.
Form 4473
11e. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or
decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.
It is asking, specifically, if you are an unlawful user of…
I personally would answer in the negative, without presentment of a subpoena for my medical records, since under HIPPA I don’t have to release my medical information without that court order being in place at the time of utterance.
Having the card should not be proof of use.
As a friend said, “I have a library card, do I have a book from the library?”.
Or even having a concealed permit, does not mean that you are carrying.
There is this HIPPA violation somewhere in this too.