Federal Court rules that people with Medical Marijuana Cards cannot legally buy Firearms

[The Heretic]

Maybe that will wake some people up!

Yeah - because we all know marijuana turns you into a violent felon.



Disclaimer: I don't use marijuana (I certainly don't smoke it - I can't due to health issues), mostly due to the very issue this thread is about. But I do have prescription oxy (which I use very rarely - once a year at most for severe back pain). But someday I might have to. I am at risk for Parkinsons and other similar issues when I get a bit older, and I have pain issues now that are getting worse. Eventually marijuana will be legal at a federal level and then these kinds of stupid laws/et. al. will get resolved.

Having a marijuana card is not proof that you use marijuana, it is just proof that you have a prescription for it. I could have taken the prescription I got for kidney stones and just thrown it away without ever filling it (I didn't need it - the morphine drip they gave me at the hospital worked fine - for the first time in 30+ years I felt no back pain for a few hours).

 

[The Heretic]

It does? What if you are in fact telling the truth? It's only a lie if you are in fact guilty of anything asked about in the original question.

"Marijuana remains illegal under federal law, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has told gun sellers they can assume a person with a medical marijuana card uses the drug.

The 9th Circuit in its 3-0 decision agreed that it's reasonable for federal regulators to assume a medical marijuana card holder is more likely to use the drug."

How about if I walk into a gun store wanting to buy a gun and I am wearing a tie die t-shirt with a marijuana leaf on the front of it. Can the FFL then assume I am a marijuana user too?
More likely to use? Now we are going on probabilities, not proof? I used to drink to excess when I was very young? Does that mean I am more likely to be a drunk now?

How about all of those lawmakers who used to smoke marijuana or use illegal drugs?

This is where our legal system is going - rumor and innuendo. Someone might do something, or might be a technical criminal (based on a stupid unconstitutional law), so lets deny them their rights. This is why we are circling the drain; those in power are enacting more and more laws, supposedly so they can "protect" us (often from ourselves), but really so they have more power over us - and we are not only letting them do it, we are demanding it.

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

Although if folks have had these cards in the past, I think that the ATF might take advantage of this ruling, to screw them

My thoughts exactly. Also when you buy in OR without a Med Card they ask for your DL or ID and then copy the info down! That's what I heard anyway
What happens to that info??

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

I would be way more likely to trust a stoned guy with a gun than I would a drunk guy.

Both choices suck but on the safety issue a stoned guy would be paranoidly obsessed with checking if it's unloaded I guess.

 

[that guy]

Also when you buy in OR without a Med Card they ask for your DL or ID and then copy the info down! That's what I heard anyway
What happens to that info??

Ask a Pot Lawyer: "Right now, there is no word on what the state will do with this recorded information, if anything. In theory, the names of consumers who are non-medical cardholders would be subject to public disclosure under the Oregon Public Records Law. This situation also raises interesting questions about transmission of data from dispensaries to third parties, like marketers."

Not sure what the correction at the bottom of the story means. Maybe now they don't record your info?

 

[elsie]

I don't use marijuana myself so it's not an issue for me, but if I did I would answer "No" on the form. My justification? It's not illegal in the jurisdiction I am in. The question itself is ambiguous enough that you've got a chance of reasonable doubt. And I'd probably end up in prison.


elsie

 

[RicInOR]

Some of this is duplicate - sorry I missed the thread and started a new one.

This is a good article on the topic:
9th Circuit Says Medical Marijuana Cardholders Have No Second Amendment Rights
Citing "a strong link between drug use and violence," the appeals court says it's reasonable to stop patients from buying guns.




This is a re-post
The Ruling on Wilson v. Lynch (Lynch is of course the US Attorney)
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/08/31/14-15700.pdf



This is a re-post
Federal Court rules that people with Medical Marijuana Cards cannot legally buy Firearms

 

[RicInOR]

If like Hawaii, will your state add you to the "database" should you get a card?
How about if you just buy at a recreational shop ?

Background check to buy POT anyone? If you have a CC Permit - and try to buy, should that get you a visit from the Po-Po? Or a report to the Feds?

 

[Member 5605]

See thread here:

Federal Court rules that people with Medical Marijuana Cards cannot legally buy Firearms

 

[xlsbob]

I went to a local shop to check it out until they met me at door and wanted ID to "add to their data base" before I could enter. I'm pushing 60 so it wasn't a proof of age thing. I'm not usually paranoid about showing ID but that's not somewhere I want to be on a computer list of patrons when they have problems.

 

[slimmer13]

The 9th circuit would rule that the 2A should be revoked if you eat garlic or read books.

 

[clearconscience]

Personally I could careless. I'm not a pot head and do not support legalizing marijuana.
I understand the health aspect, but ai would guess that the majority of card holders are just potheads. And have no health reason to smoke weed or use edibles.

I'm just against it. To each their own. If you support it, I wouldn't think less of anyone.

 

[wired]

In Oregon, the OSP does the BGC. The question I have then is OSP going to deny based on this ruling? If a OMMP holder already owns guns, what's to prevent them from confiscating them? Most states have the Feds run the checks, but not Oregon, we have to pay the state. The Feds do it for free. I hope the NRA tackles this, but I bet they don't touch it.

The OSP doesnt do the background check. All they do is take $10 and enter information into the NICS system just like dealers do in other states. It makes as much sense as paying someone to pump your gas for you.

I'm glad I dont have a medical marijuana card not that I need one . My mom has one and gets freaky wasted sometimes on her "medicine" . Their only use now is that they allow you to grow marijuana for personal use in Washington or to get it tax free in Oregon. If I want some I'll just go to the store and buy it the old fashioned way..

 

[P7M13]

I didn't read the article. I will have to go back and read the article, however, that is the Hallmark of an idiotic legal decision.
Perhaps they should limit that ruling only to Californians who think that they should have their pot as well as do whatever the hell they please.
I qualify for a medical card because I have one of the diseases that is recognized as benefiting from medical use of marijuana. I wonder, if I have a license to grow med marijuana, would that affect my ability to purchase firearms?
I do currently grow 4 plants as allowed by state law, two of which are in in full bud and ready to be harvested. Those are for my wife. Personally I don't touch the stuff: I work for a company which tests me regularly and to be detected on that would be just absolutely stupid - I like my job.

 

[PaulB47]

But it IS unlawful in terms of federal law, and the Feds are the ones controlling the 4473.

Keep in mind the 4473 is completely unconstitutional...

I know, I know, it doesn't matter, they will ruin your life anyway. But lying on a 4473? What is the risk? If you do it, just consider it one of the 3 felonies you commit every day.

Anyway this all sounds like a good reason to grow your own pot if you need it, and to never involve the authorities. Getting right with the law can have its downsides.

Dude: ALL THREE of the Federal Judges that ruled on this decision today were all appointees of our highly esteemed President Bill Clinton.

How many of the recent presidents were pot smokers and cocaine users? "Some are more equal than others."

 

[Joe13]

Personally I could careless. I'm not a pot head and do not support legalizing marijuana.
I understand the health aspect, but ai would guess that the majority of card holders are just potheads. And have no health reason to smoke weed or use edibles.

I'm just against it. To each their own. If you support it, I wouldn't think less of anyone.

Kudos guy

Most anti pot people are zealots about it like anti-gun folks.

People I know that use it on occasion are all pretty chill people - I'd rather hang out with a pothead then a drunk personally.

To many jobs I've been at or am currently looking into do UAs so it's never been much of an option for me.

I figure as long as your not effecting my life you can snort coke and freebase opium for all I care - meth is a whole different story though, seen too much about it to ever think it is 'harmless'.

Guess it won't ever be an option now as I love my 2nd Amendment rights too much to justify possibly loosing them for a buzz.


Funny though because I'm legally high as a kite on pain meds right now listening to Dwight Yoakom's greatest hits cd while my eyes are slowly closing - took the wifes advice and left the gun in the safe tonight though she can get it and knows how to use it so I pitty the fool who breaks in either way.

First time in quite awhile I've cried over pain (my eyes literally rolled back in my head it hurt so bad... I have alarms set now though) so I let it get too bad before taking more - I'm not a huge fan of the feeling so was trying to space it out, but looks like I'll be pill popping for a bit - no driving or shooting for me until I'm off them.

 

[Member 3687]

I do not use pot and have no desire to but I do not have a problem with it if used in your own home and not driving or at work. I have yet to see a belligerent pot head but I have seen a lot of belligerent drunks.

But the problem is that under federal law it is still a controlled substance no matter what the state says.

In fact the states that allow it are in violation of federal law and from what I understand if the feds wanted to push it they could cut all funding to a state for violating the law and raid the pot shops and seize all moneys including the taxes collected for the state from its sales just like any drug dealer.

So now we come to the question of the day on the 4473

11e. are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

This pretty much sums it up right there in black and white because nowhere does it say "Unless you have a medical marijuana card" in fact you do not even have to be addicted just a user and that is not defined so how many times is a user just once (remember back in 78 at that Gratefully Dead concert), maybe twice or weekly.

When I worked at the gun shop on the weekends in Idaho we turned down several folks who made stupid remarks like "ya we go over to Spokane and do pot as it is legal there" after reading 11 e and at that point all sales stop because they just admitted to a felony and as far as I knew they were BATFE trying to trap me and I was not going to jail for a part time job.

I personally do not agree with the fact the government has and does infringe on anybody's Second Amendment including the 4473 itself but until the law is changed we are stuck with it if we wish to remain law abiding...

 

[PaulB47]

and at that point all sales stop because they just admitted to a felony and as far as I knew they were BATFE trying to trap me and I was not going to jail for a part time job.

Ah, the ever helpful government; where would we be without them? They are just doing their job - that is, disarming as many people as possible...

we are stuck with it if we wish to remain law abiding

Sounds like a good reason to get over that law-abiding fetish.

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."
--Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819

The ruling class does not obey the highest law of the land (of which the 2nd Amendment is part); so why should we? What virtue is there in being law-abiding, when tyrants make law? There is no virtue; there is only expedience.

I say, do what is right, and "be careful out there".

 

[HuckleberryFun]

I'm more concerned about potheads happy-driving a couple tons of steel at me on the road than I am about whatever firearms they might have at home or in that car.

 

[The Heretic]

Personally I could careless. I'm not a pot head and do not support legalizing marijuana.
I understand the health aspect, but ai would guess that the majority of card holders are just potheads. And have no health reason to smoke weed or use edibles.

I'm just against it. To each their own. If you support it, I wouldn't think less of anyone.

This is the old "you don't need it", "it isn't good for you" argument.

Same argument used to ban guns.

I don't smoke pot either. I don't use drugs "recreationally". I also don't get drunk (I can't drink anyway - health reasons), and I don't smoke tobacco (again, health reasons) - I think any of these are stupid and harmful.

I rarely use a prescription drug - last time I did was about 4 years ago (kidney stones really really really hurt! so does a pinched nerve).

But I do not believe in making laws/rules/regs against possessions or actions that do not infringe on the rights of others, or harm others. If a person wants to smoke pot or tobacco, get drunk, ride a motorcycle without a helmet, own and/or shoot guns - as long as they do not harm others, I don't have a problem with it. It is their life and they can do what they want with it - it isn't any of my business.

Moreover, I have health reasons for consuming marijuana (chronic pain). I have a family member who has even better health reasons for consuming marijuana. Neither of us do at this point - the main reasons are our conditions are not that acute yet and we can do okay day to day without marijuana, and it isn't worth the hassle with the federal government, and I own guns, I don't want them taken away, and I want to continue to legally buy them.

At some point I will probably develop Parkinsons (not proved to be hereditary, but my grandfather had it, my father and other family members had it) and my back pain slowly gets worse as I get older. My family member has a non-curable disease that is helped by cannabis extracts.

As I mentioned, I don't smoke at all - I can't. But there is more to marijuana than smoking it. Most of the really beneficial uses of marijuana are in its extracts. But the federal government actively discourages and strictly regulates any medical research into any use of cannabis no matter how promising.

Why?

Because they want to keep it illegal.

Why?

Partly because they want to control the populace. Also because marijuana is a lot more profitable when it is illegal, and the government is bribed behind the scenes by those who want to keep it illegal so they can profit from it - and I am not talking just about drug dealers/traffickers, I am talking about banks and law enforcement.

Meanwhile, a lot more people are misuse and abuse prescription drugs than those who use "illegal" drugs.

Why?