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

[The Heretic]

 

[The Heretic]

Oh for sure. I think we were talking about different things.

I mostly go by the context of the thread.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Didn't read the thread but I heard (I've never been a member there) that ar15.com banned a whole bunch of people a ways back for essentially just saying they were a dope smoker even in innocent passing.

 

[wired]

All the more reason to avoid arfcom.

 

[The Heretic]

Didn't read the thread but I heard (I've never been a member there) that ar15.com banned a whole bunch of people a ways back for essentially just saying they were a dope smoker even in innocent passing.

I keep hearing these kinds of things about that forum.

 

[wired]

Horrible place.

 

[Certaindeaf]

I keep hearing these kinds of things about that forum.

I only go there if doing a search and wind up there.. and then find that that site is sticky/balky and essentially unusable.. at least by me.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Horrible place.

I heard that one guy used Towelie as his avatar and got banned.







just kidding.. I have no idea
lol

 

[The B]

Didn't read the whole thread.. People have a lot to say in this one

Has anyone pointed out the fact that if you're a regular consumer of alcohol or coffee that you're EXACTLY the same as a marijuana user according to the 4473?

Exactly the same. You answer "no," you're a liar.

bubblegum laws that are unconstitutional on multiple levels boys. bubblegum them to death.

 

[The Heretic]

 

[Jabba]

Couple points on this ruling. Don't have a link now, but I read an article on this where they were basically saying the FFL could deny the purchase by reasonably assuming the card holder was an illegal drug user. It still seemed to be up to the discretion of the FFL. If you could convince an FFL you didn't use, you should theoretically be able to purchase still.

Second, does federal law only prohibit possession? If so and the ATF form question only mentions illegal drug use, you could honestly answer no if its legal in the state and the feds don't regulate use.

 

[PaulB47]

You can't deny that everyone pays for the negative impact of tobacco.

I have heard smokers actually cost less because they die off before they get old and really start consuming health care.

This is only a problem if you assume socialism is the correct way to handle social problems. Venezuelans are now questioning that assumption...

In a free society, of course such arguments would disappear. It would not be the case, that everybody is on the hook for a particular individual's bad choices.

 

[WALawyer]

Very true. This ruling is not that applicable anymore to either Washington or Oregon. Although if folks have had these cards in the past, I think that the ATF might take advantage of this ruling, to screw them.

This is a more serious issue to gun owners in other states like California or Nevada, where medical marijuana is the only legal way to buy it.

.

This ruling is very applicable to Washington. There are still a medical marijuana system in WA, which allows registered users to purchase more than recreational users and to not pay the tax.

Yes, but, anyone in Washington who smokes the devil weed can check "no" in good conscience, since it is legal to use marijuana, and they wouldn't be considered an unlawful user of said drug. I think this ruling is BS. (And I don't even smoke weed, anymore! I think it's been over 10 years since I touched the stuff)

No, as others have pointed out, the 4473 is a federal form. All of the answers on it must conform to federal law.

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.

The interstate commerce clause encompasses an indirect affect on commerce. A good does not have to actually cross state lines in order to be in interstate commerce because it affects commerce in other states. The Supreme Court has already ruled that drugs and guns are basically presumed to affect interstate commerce, directly or indirectly.

Didn't read the whole thread.. People have a lot to say in this one

Has anyone pointed out the fact that if you're a regular consumer of alcohol or coffee that you're EXACTLY the same as a marijuana user according to the 4473?

Exactly the same. You answer "no," you're a liar.

bubblegum laws that are unconstitutional on multiple levels boys. bubblegum them to death.

No one's pointed that out because it's wrong. Alcohol and coffee are legal under federal law, marijuana is not.

I started a thread with a link to my blog post about this on July 7, and some people made fun of me for being too paranoid: Medical marijuana registry and federal gun laws (Washington)

 

[The Heretic]

On a slight tangent:

When the Unthinkable Happens-Your FFL Gets Raided - AllOutdoor.com

FFl gets raided because he works at dispensary

 

[The B]

This ruling is very applicable to Washington. There are still a medical marijuana system in WA, which allows registered users to purchase more than recreational users and to not pay the tax.



No, as others have pointed out, the 4473 is a federal form. All of the answers on it must conform to federal law.



The interstate commerce clause encompasses an indirect affect on commerce. A good does not have to actually cross state lines in order to be in interstate commerce because it affects commerce in other states. The Supreme Court has already ruled that drugs and guns are basically presumed to affect interstate commerce, directly or indirectly.



No one's pointed that out because it's wrong. Alcohol and coffee are legal under federal law, marijuana is not.

I started a thread with a link to my blog post about this on July 7, and some people made fun of me for being too paranoid: Medical marijuana registry and federal gun laws (Washington)

The 4473 doesn't say anything about federal law. It just asks if you're an unlawful user of OR addicted to any depressant, stimulant, bla bla.

Was my lawyer that pointed this out to me the other day, esquire.

 

[wired]

I'd cut and paste it but this stupid apple thing wont let me. Its a short short read but nothing new. This memo went out 5 years ago..

https://www.atf.gov/file/60211/download

 

[wired]

The 4473 doesn't say anything about federal law. It just asks if you're an unlawful user of OR addicted to any depressant, stimulant, bla bla.

Was my lawyer that pointed this out to me the other day, esquire.

You need a better lawyer . From the 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 think some people are failing to read the original post and the article it link in that post.

Anybody - including lawyers - can say they think this or that on the issue, but the ninth district court has spoken, and in court, their word is the law - not speculation.

Unless you are willing to risk going to court and then to prison, and spend a lot of money in the meantime, and maybe hope that you can get the SCOTUS to hear your case (unlikely unless another district court has a different opinion on the law), then don't do it.

Even then, I would advise letting someone else do it for you.

Up to you though.

Me - I have a family to support and I can't do that if I blow all my money on lawyers only to wind up in prison.

I'll wait until the federal gov. decides they are tired of being in the pocket of the cartels and big pharma, and/or they can't take public pressure anymore. I won't hold my breathe.

Maker Of Dangerous Opioid Is Spending Big To Stop Legal Pot In Arizona | Huffington Post

 

[The B]

You need a better lawyer . From the 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."

How does this refute what I said?

 

[wired]

How does this refute what I said?

Uh. Well, you said

"The 4473 doesn't say anything about federal law. It just asks if you're an unlawful user of OR addicted to any depressant, stimulant, bla bla." "
"Was my lawyer that pointed this out to me the other day, esquire."

The new 4473 actually does say something about federal law in relation to marijuana use notably the 11E box...

"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."

So, whats your question? I'm assuming your lawyer was reading the old 4473.