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

[The Heretic]

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.

I had a friend killed by a drunk driver. Let's ban alcohol.

Oh wait - we tried that didn't we?

 

[wired]

I just check "No" on the 4473. Thats good enough for me .

 

[elsie]

There is an interesting counter-argument to the "marijuana is still illegal on the federal level" and it even has a firearms parallel.

I'm not 100% sure, but I believe they are regulated under the oft abused and stretched beyond the imagination Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution. Now the way states have worked their marijuana legalization (medicinal or otherwise) is that only product grown within the state may be sold under those rules. This would obviate the Interstate Commerce part.

The firearms parallel is that Montana (I believe) has a company or persons manufacturing firearms stamped "Only for use in the State of Montana" and only sells them within the state. I seem to recall they did this without bothering with a lot of the federal interference. This was a few years ago and I haven't heard anything recently; the feds may have stomped on them or they might have gone the way of the dodo, but it was a form of protest that the feds looked the other way on. I think the feds didn't want to get into setting court precedents.


elsie

 

[salmonriverjohn]

I sure as heck won't tell anyone they shouldn't smoke or ingest it, and I for damned sure won't tell them they should either.
What hell is wrong with folks when we say to do what I say, but it's only ok if I say it is?

The left wants to ban certain aspects of the constitution, but only those they disagree with.
Those on the other end of the spectrum are just as bad.

If someone drinks or smokes. Skydives, rides a motorcycle without a helmet or whatever and it doesn't impact another persons life or risk it, then who should be the one to judge their choices?
Not me, and to those that don't like the way I choose to live,, well that's easy, pound sand as I could really give a crap how others feel.

This nanny state BS is something we ALL should be able to agree on at least.

 

[The Heretic]

Worse yet, we put pot smokers (and drug addicts) in prison for simple possession - supposedly to protect them from themselves?

Then we release violent felons from prisons because they are overcrowded?

Over half the convicts in federal prison are there for a drug offense.

The so-called war on drugs (which I was on the LE side of for almost 4 years) is bogus. It is used to take our rights and money. Now that the "war on drugs" has been shown to do nothing but harm and people are pushing to stop it, we have the "war on terrorism" which is even worse and we have the "war on gun violence" going right along with that.

Fear people - fear is used to manipulate you. To control you.

Wake up!

 

[AMProducts]

So here's one of those things...

The question says "are you an unlawful user of..." if you have a MMJ card, you're a lawful user. Further it says "addicted to..." If you're using MMJ to get you through chemo, can you say you're addicted to it? If you use MMJ to deal with a condition, you're not necessarily addicted to it (anymore than you might be with a prescription opiate) and you're a lawful user, so it seems answering "no" would be appropriate. If this is being reinterpreted to deny even lawful users, then it would seem to apply to those who are taking other medications as prescribed by a doctor. Where does that leave us?

The real problem with the MMJ legislation is that it's down to "doctor's recommendation" that's an even more broad standard than what currently regulates dietary supplements. In many ways it's rife with, and open to abuse. However, there are plenty of circumstances where it's more than appropriate. The problem with tightening that regulation, is that you are more likely to deny it to someone who needs it, then actually make a difference on the abuse side.

People like drugs, they pretty much have since antiquity, it's one of the defining characteristics of all human societies: War, Sex and Intoxicants.

 

[salmonriverjohn]

^^^^

 

[HuckleberryFun]

Recently, I had reason to take a genuinely sick person who suffers from seizures and degenerative neuromuscular disease (amongst other things) to a medical marijuana place. If ever there was a case for legitimate medical marijuana use, then this poor sick wheelchair bound person would be a poster child. We get there (Plane Jane's in NE PDX) and found out the place is NOT wheelchair accessible and the staff was indifferent when I asked politely how he could get in. Although advertising itself as a "medical" marijuana dispensary, it seems they were not interested in accommodating *genuinely* sick people. Meanwhile a scruffy but healthy 20-something slacker type just walked right by and inside. I just laughed at the hypocrisy.

 

[wired]

I walked into a marijuana store the other day and I wasnt even sick. Imagine that.

 

[The Heretic]

So here's one of those things...

The question says "are you an unlawful user of..." if you have a MMJ card, you're a lawful user. Further it says "addicted to..." If you're using MMJ to get you through chemo, can you say you're addicted to it? If you use MMJ to deal with a condition, you're not necessarily addicted to it (anymore than you might be with a prescription opiate) and you're a lawful user, so it seems answering "no" would be appropriate. If this is being reinterpreted to deny even lawful users, then it would seem to apply to those who are taking other medications as prescribed by a doctor. Where does that leave us?

The real problem with the MMJ legislation is that it's down to "doctor's recommendation" that's an even more broad standard than what currently regulates dietary supplements. In many ways it's rife with, and open to abuse. However, there are plenty of circumstances where it's more than appropriate. The problem with tightening that regulation, is that you are more likely to deny it to someone who needs it, then actually make a difference on the abuse side.

People like drugs, they pretty much have since antiquity, it's one of the defining characteristics of all human societies: War, Sex and Intoxicants.

It is unlawful at the federal level and federal law trumps state law.

The form says:

"Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"

Marijuana is on a federal "controlled substance" list.

As far as federal law is concerned, almost any user of marijuana is an unlawful user - possibly the only lawful user would be someone in a controlled clinical trial or something similar, sanctioned by a federal agency and those are very rare.

In short, you can play all these word and mind games with the wording on a 4473, but it won't hold up in court. There has already been a decision to that effect - see the first post in this thread.

 

[The Heretic]

Recently, I had reason to take a genuinely sick person who suffers from seizures and degenerative neuromuscular disease (amongst other things) to a medical marijuana place. If ever there was a case for legitimate medical marijuana use, then this poor sick wheelchair bound person would be a poster child. We get there (Plane Jane's in NE PDX) and found out the place is NOT wheelchair accessible and the staff was indifferent when I asked politely how he could get in. Although advertising itself as a "medical" marijuana dispensary, it seems they were not interested in accommodating *genuinely* sick people. Meanwhile a scruffy but healthy 20-something slacker type just walked right by and inside. I just laughed at the hypocrisy.

And at the same time, there are marijuana growers who are specifically breeding and growing various forms of marijuana that are low in THC to produce CBD that doesn't get their patients high while still helping them control such things as epilepsy and other nervous system disorders.

 

[wired]

How does federal law trump state law when the whole rationale behind the federal power grab was that intrastate commerce affects interstate commerce therefore the feds can regulate intrastate commerce as well? If the feds do a blanket outlaw of Marijuana at the federal level there is no interstate trade of it nor does the law in one state allowing it affect the law in another state where it is allowed if interstate traffic is not allowed. I think a lot of the reason the feds havent gone after state legal sales is they dont want to open that can of worms.

 

[Garg]

Regards to the form 4473, in Oregon, it is NOT illegal to use Cannabis, so the answer would be NO.
In my case, I have not used cannabis products for over 20 years. My wife however, is using the RSO, which is a cannabis extract. If anyone here can look me in the eye and tell me that my wife, who just got done with her 5th round of chemo doesn't or shouldn't use this for her comfort, then well, I really don't have anything to say.
I have learned a lot about what this stuff can do, and I am NOW a believer.
My last comment on the subject.

 

[AMProducts]

It is unlawful at the federal level and federal law trumps state law.

The form says:

"Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"

Marijuana is on a federal "controlled substance" list.

As far as federal law is concerned, almost any user of marijuana is an unlawful user - possibly the only lawful user would be someone in a controlled clinical trial or something similar, sanctioned by a federal agency and those are very rare.

In short, you can play all these word and mind games with the wording on a 4473, but it won't hold up in court. There has already been a decision to that effect - see the first post in this thread.

I totally agree... but read the wording again, "unlawful user of, or addicted to" that's or, not and, so if you're addicted to a "controlled substance" even anti-biotics are controlled... but probably hard to get addicted to.

Really, this whole exercise is the living embodiment of the statement: "We are a nation of laws, badly written and arbitrarily enforced"

 

[The Heretic]

It is a federal form, not a state form. As far as the federal government (and ATF) is concerned, marijuana is a controlled substance and use of it is illegal anywhere in the USA including Oregon. Go read the decision by the Ninth District federal court.

The feds did go after and still do go after growers in various states where marijuana is legal by state law. They arrest growers every day, and they arrest state dispensers too.

They just don't do it as much as they did previously because the current admin has asked them not to.

Despite Reforms Federal Medical Marijuana Raids Continue In South Lake Tahoe

Facing raids, marijuana dispensaries find legalization leaves them vulnerable

The DEA Investigates Cannabis-Oil Company True North Extracts

How does federal law trump state law? Easily - you would be arrested by federal LEOs, charged with violating a federal law, tried in a federal court and put in a federal prison. The state won't have any say in the matter.

Don't fool yourself with sophistry and wind up in prison. If you don't believe me, ask a lawyer.

 

[wired]

From the new 4473...

"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."

 

[The Heretic]

I totally agree... but read the wording again, "unlawful user of, or addicted to" that's or, not and, so if you're addicted to a "controlled substance" even anti-biotics are controlled... but probably hard to get addicted to.

Really, this whole exercise is the living embodiment of the statement: "We are a nation of laws, badly written and arbitrarily enforced"

There is "controlled" (as in needing a prescription) and then there is "a controlled substance".

DEA / Drug Scheduling

Schedule I

Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Some examples of Schedule I drugs are:

heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana (cannabis), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), methaqualone, and peyote

In short, the law is very specific. As I said, don't bother debating with me - go talk to a lawyer if you want to know the truth. That is who you will be talking to if you are a user of marijuana, and get caught buying a firearm while answering no to that question on the 4473 form.

The debate won't be on the internet with me, it will be in a federal court wit ha federal judge, which has already set the precedent that is currently binding in all ninth district federal courts. Unless you are able to be able to afford a really good lawyer and lucky enough to get the SCOTUS to hear the case, and lucky enough to get them to strike down that decision - which is very unlikely - then you will be doing time in a federal pound me in the posterior prison.

I don't like the decision any more than anybody else, but I don't play mind or word games when it comes to the law. Lying on a 4473 form is a felony and punishable by up to five years in prison. I won't do it.

This is one reason why I won't use any marijuana product until it is legal at the federal level. Another reason is that sometimes, to get a job, I have to take a drug test - until such time as I retire or there is case law that prevents an employer from not hiring someone due to failing a drug test for THC, I will not use it.

 

[AMProducts]

In short, the law is very specific. As I said, don't bother debating with me - go talk to a lawyer if you want to know the truth. That is who you will be talking to if you are a user of marijuana, and get caught buying a firearm while answering no to that question on the 4473 form.

I'm really not that invested... because I can honestly answer no.

It's really more a matter of exploring the edge cases that present themselves and their arbitrary application to a range of things we do every day. What's the average? 3 felonies per day?

 

[The Heretic]

I'm really not that invested... because I can honestly answer no.

It's really more a matter of exploring the edge cases that present themselves and their arbitrary application to a range of things we do every day. What's the average? 3 felonies per day?

I've heard that mentioned but I haven't seen the evidence or examples of it.

Do I break the law multiple times per day? Yes - I speed over the limit at least that many times on my way to work. That isn't a felony.

I am aware that we probably break laws unknowingly - there are so many laws it would be hard not to. But felonies? Those are some pretty serious actions - you would think that we would have a clue.

And yes, I don't have to lie on the form either - but I take such things very seriously. Besides trying to be law abiding because most of the time it is the right thing to do ethically, I also try to abide by the law because I do indeed fear the consequences. I have an ex-BIL who is serving 50 years in prison (justifiably so). I know a few other people who have been in trouble with the law and paid for it in a number of different ways.

I have a daughter who depends on me to be there for her and I don't want to fail her - that in itself tends to keep me out of intentionally getting into trouble.

I imagine other people have similar responsibilities and I hate it when people run afoul of stupid laws and suffer for it. So it is important to me to discourage people from thinking they can skirt the law with a bit of sophistry and/or flawed logic. The law is very clear in this regard.

 

[Libertas7]

How does federal law trump state law? Easily - you would be arrested by federal LEOs, charged with violating a federal law, tried in a federal court and put in a federal prison. The state won't have any say in the matter.

So I'm reading the 10th amendment completely wrong?